Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — HOME DEPARTMENT

Taxis and Private Hire Vehicles

Mr. Evelyn King: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will introduce new legislation dealing with taxi and private hire vehicles.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Lane): We recognise that there is a need for such legislation, but I cannot at present say when it will be introduced.

Mr. King: Is not current law based upon an Act of 1847, which was designed to deal with the horse and cab and is wildly inappropriate to radio-controlled hire vehicles? Did not the Home Office promise legislation as long ago as 1954, for local authority associations, having regard to the difficulties arising in Portland, Dorset, and elsewhere? Will my hon. Friend try to hurry this up?

Mr. Lane: Certainly new legislation is overdue. That is quite accepted. But my hon. Friend will remember that we recently passed an Act bringing up to date the situation in London in certain respects, and we are looking at the present legislation for the rest of the country outside London. I realise the urgency of this matter.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Is it fully realised how urgent this matter is now becoming? In many of our towns serious problems of semi-violence are occurring because of the unfairness of the treatment of the taxi-cab operator as against the private hire operator. This is very deeply felt.

I ask the hon. Gentleman to hasten action on the matter.

Mr. Lane: I know that this matter is urgent. I have said that previously. But it is not a simple matter to get new legislation right if we are covering the whole country, where circumstances differ very much from area to area. We are pressing on as quickly as we can.

Sir T. Beamish: Is my hon. Friend aware of the near impossibility of telling whether a taxi in London is for hire, particularly if the sun is behind it? Is it impossible to devise a system that will cause less frustration than the present one?

Mr. Lane: I should not fancy myself as a designer of cab signs, but I hope that the new London Cab Act, which the House passed a few months ago, will help considerably in a number of ways in the London area.

Mr. John Fraser: As the Home Office has now had for a considerable time the Maxwell Stamp Report, which deals with hire cars and taxis and could well be applicable outside London, may we have a statement of the Government's views early in the next Session, as a prelude to legislation?

Mr. Lane: Certainly, I hope that we shall be able to say something more in the next Session. Meanwhile, we are resuming our discussions with the Greater London Council about the Maxwell Stamp Report and we shall press forward with that also.

Race Relations Board and Community Relations Commission

Mr. Soref: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the cost to public funds of the Race Relations Board, the Community Relations Commission and community relation council, over the period since their inception; and if he will make a statement.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Robert Carr): Between 1968–69 and 1972–73 public expenditure on the board and the commission, including grants by the commission to local community relations councils, has totalled


about £3 million. I will, with permission, circulate detailed information in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Soref: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the mounting feeling about the expenditure of this money, which it is felt in many quarters is being spent to promote rather than abate racial friction and disharmony? In many cases are not community relations officers employed by the commission and the council Black Power agitators? Will my right hon. Friend give the House an assurance that there will not be a recurrence of a pamphlet that was published two years ago, financed by the Race Relations Commission, intimidated by Michael X, which cost the taxpayer and ratepayers a considerable amount of money?

Mr. Carr: I do not accept that the amount of money, over the four-year period about which I have spoken, is an unreasonable amount in relation to the work that these bodies do. I most cer-

Financial Year



1968–69
1969–70
1970–71
1971–72
1972–73*



£
£
£
£
£


Race Relations Board† (Home Office grant)
108,958
161,066
162,159
184,816
233,515


Community Relations Commission† (Home Office grant-in-aid)
185,000‡
265,000
365,000
462,000
772,000


Grants by Community Relations Commission to community relations councils, etc.§
66,896
138,666
182,187
234,533
305,136


* Provisional figures subject to audit.


† As shown in Appropriation Accounts.


‡ Including part-year grant-in-aid to National Committee for Commonwealth Immigrants.


§ These grants are made from the commission's own grant-in-aid from the Home Office


Accommodation costs and certain other expenditure of the Race Relations Board are borne on other Departmental Votes and are not included in the table above.

Shoplifting

Mr. Adley: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the progress of his Department's review on shoplifting.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Mark Carlisle): The Home Office Standing Committee on Crime Prevention recently received the report of the Working Party on Internal Shop Security. The main report, and a short version intended primarily for the small shopkeepers, will be made available as quickly as possible.

Mr. Adley: I am most grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for his continuing interest and help with this subject. Does he accept that the large super-

tainly cannot accept my hon. Friend's interpretation of the intention, let alone the effect of their work.

Mr. Molloy: Does not the Home Secretary agree that this endeavour is one of the most civilised upon which any civilised nation could embark, to ease tension among all sorts of people in various communities? Does he not further agree that if there is anything that can damage race relations it is the sort of question that he had to answer a moment ago?

Mr. Carr: There are many sorts of questions that can damage race relations. One important thing, which I hope all of us will always keep in mind when we draw attention, for example, to some of the difficulties suffered by minority groups, is the overall success of race relations in this country and the overall very high level of tolerance that the British people sustain.

Following is the information:

markets are the main cause of the problem, and that there has been an unfortunate and simultaneous increase in the number of grocery supermarkets and in shoplifting? Does he agree that one of the worst byproducts of the present system seems to be that people who have never previously been dishonest are finding themselves up on criminal charges and being convicted of having committed crimes?

Mr. Carlisle: I have always accepted that the modern methods of shopping and the ways in which goods are displayed inevitably lead to greater temptation, but I do not think that is any reason why any of us should condone dishonesty as such.

Mr. Greville Janner: Is the Minister of State aware that none of us would defend


the dishonest? What worries so many of us is that the honest are likely to be charged and prosecuted, and that many of those prosecutions fail, by which time those concerned are ill? When will he take this type of prosecution out of the hands of the private shopkeeper and put it into the hands of the police, where it belongs?

Mr. Carlisle: The hon. and learned Gentleman knows full well that under the general law either the police or a private individual can prosecute. I see no basis on which to withdraw that right from the private individual in one sector while leaving it to private individuals in all other sectors.

Prisoners (Conjugal Visits)

Mr. Meacher: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to introduce conjugal visiting in prisons and other places of detention.

Mr. Carlisle: My right hon. Friend has no such plans.

Mr. Meacher: In view of the desirability of preserving marital relationships for the purposes of rehabilitation, in view of the needs of prisoners' wives, in view of the need to reduce homosexuality in prison, and because of the dangers of increased personality breakdown arising from the trend towards longer sentences, will the Minister consider carefully a limited experimental introduction of conjugal visiting in prison, since this has already been tried successfully in several countries?

Mr. Carlisle: No, we shall not. I fully accept the importance of retaining family ties—that is why we have extended the opportunities for home visits towards the end of sentences and are also encouraging more visiting of prisoners and granting them more opportunity to correspond by letter—but the idea of conjugal visits is wholly unacceptable to many people. I believe that it would do nothing but cause embarrassment and, indeed, indignity to many of the wives concerned.

Mrs. Renée Short: Does the Minister of State recall that an all-party Select Committee made precisely this proposal to his predecessor in 1968? Is he aware that in all the countries where this has been operating for some time there has

been a considerable reduction of tension within prison and, therefore, a much easier life for prison officers, who are able to do the job they are intended to do, which is not simply to keep prisoners under lock and key but to do rehabilitation work? Will the hon. and learned Gentleman consider the report again and see whether it is not possible to carry out an experiment on a limited scale?

Mr. Carlisle: Of course we are aware of the report to which the hon. Lady refers. We have given consideration to it and also to the views of the committee under Professor Radzinowicz, but we have come firmly to the view that the practical problem of producing a system of conjugal visits that could in any way be acceptable are overwhelming. It is a question of the selection of the prisoners concerned, the selection of the relationship to the women outside from whom they wish to receive a visit, and the selection of the places in which the visits could take place. We believe that the practical arguments against overwhelm the arguments that the hon. Lady has mentioned.

Urban Aid

Mr. Horam: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will establish a comprehensive index of social deprivation for the purposes of disbursing urban aid.

Mr. Lane: In allocating urban aid to particular areas and projects my right hon. Friend takes account of the assessment made by local authorities of their needs and priorities, as well as of national considerations, but he is considering how the system of evaluation can be further improved.

Mr. Horam: I am glad to hear that. Is the Minister aware that considerable concern is being expressed about the way in which urban aid is being dispersed? It appears to many local authorities that this is a very hit-and-miss method. Several years ago there was an attempt by the Home Office to establish an index of social deprivation of the kind for which I am asking, but that work was discontinued. Will the Under-Secretary re-establish this kind of work and give it priority?

Mr. Lane: As I said in my original answer, we are trying to find a more


sophisticated method of assessment. It may be that something on the lines the hon. Gentleman suggests will some day be right. I am not at present convinced that it is right. If the hon. Gentleman has any suggestions to make from his own experience in Gateshead, which has had a large amount of urban aid, we shall be glad to consider them. I discuss this matter with local authorities when I go round visiting and we are trying to improve our methods in the light of experience.

Mr. Kaufman: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what specific aid he plans to provide for the Ardwick constituency in particular and for the City of Manchester in general, in fulfilment of his responsibilities for coordinating Government aid for deprived urban areas.

Mr. R. Carr: Manchester City Council has submitted a number of schemes in response to the latest urban programme circular, and I hope to announce by the end of September which have been approved. Of the schemes approved in the past for Manchester, 11 can be identified as relating particularly to the Ardwick constituency.
As to the future, I shall be considering with my colleagues how best to coordinate all the relevant programmes designed to help deprived urban areas in order to try to increase their combined effectiveness.

Mr. Kaufman: I thank the Minister for that helpful answer. May I ask him to add to his list of projects for the city of Manchester two in my constituency, which are being starved for lack of funds? One is playground facilities for the Wenlock Way area, where mothers have had to barricade the roads because of the dangers to their children, and the other is benches for old people in the Park Crescent area, an amenity badly needed in that part of Manchester.

Mr. Carr: I note the hon. Gentleman's suggestions and shall consider them. He probably knows that one of the 11 schemes I mentioned was for a playground elsewhere in his constituency, so it will be seen that that sort of project certainly qualifies.

Mr. Charles R. Morris: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that during his

recent visit to Manchester—which, coincidentally, was on the day he assumed responsibility for co-ordinating Government aid to deprived urban areas—he commented that human needs seemed to have been forgotten? When considering the schemes he has announced today, will he bear in mind the need for more youth clubs in the Openshaw area?

Mr. Carr: Yes, indeed, Sir. When I see some of the concrete deserts, not only in Manchester, I think they are a disgrace—and I do not care who built them. In future urban development we must pay far more attention to trying not to break up old communities and to meeting the community needs of the new communities in the new development.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: May I press the right hon. Gentleman a little further on the question of the scope of his powers of co-ordination of other Departments? It is becoming increasingly clear that many hon. Members feel that a wide co-ordination is now needed to deal with urban property. In particular, are the right hon. Gentleman's powers such as to suggest that wherever there is a major housing programme provision should be made for such things as facilities for young people, nursery accommodation, and provision for old people within the estates—which can normally be done far less expensively than if they are added on by a departmental budget afterwards?

Mr. Carr: These are early days yet. I must learn to walk before I start to run in this difficult matter. It was just because my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister felt the great importance of bringing these things together that he asked me to act as a co-ordinating Minister.

Firearms Control

Mr. Luce: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many representations he has received from the public on the Green Paper entitled "The Control of Firearms in Great Britain".

Mr. Carlisle: The Home Office has received more than 3,200 letters.

Mr. Luce: In view of those representations and the widespread concern that many of these administrative controls proposed may prove to be unnecessarily burdensome, will my hon. and learned Friend


consider extending still further the period of consultation on the Green Paper? I fully support any measures which will effectively control the use of firearms in crime, but does not my hon. and learned Friend agree that the strongest deterrent is the fuller implementation by the courts of the new powers of imprisonment they have available?

Mr. Carlisle: We are giving the greatest possible consideration to the large volume of representations that we have received, and we shall continue to do so. I am grateful to have the opportunity of repeating that this is a consultative document, on which we wish to hear representations. I cannot agree to extending beyond the end of July the time limit which we have already extended once, as we believe that it is important that we should be able to introduce legislation at an early date to do what we consider is necesssary about this matter. The final part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question is a matter for the courts and not one on which I should comment.

Mr. Raphael Tuck: It is now some time since the Green Paper was published. It not the Minister of State aware that since the Green Paper came out there have been further cases of intimidation with imitation weapons? Will he expedite either a White Paper or legislation? Has he given any consideration to my suggestion that all imitation firearms should be brightly coloured, so that people know the difference?

Mr. Carlisle: We are giving consideration to all suggestions. It has been pointed out to us that someone could sell a brightly-coloured firearm and a pot of paint alongside it. I am not prepared to expedite matters further. It is reasonable to allow until the end of July for representations, and that we propose to do.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Will my hon. and learned Friend confirm that it is not the Government's intention to restrict the lawful use of smooth-bore firearms for such activities as clay pigeon shooting or normal legitimate sport?

Mr. Carlisle: We have made it clear that there is no intention to prohibit the legitimate use of firearms and shotguns.

Mr. Pardoe: Has the Minister of State's attention been drawn by the Leader of the House to the suggestion I made in

business questions about two weeks ago that this question should be referred to a Select Committee, particularly in view of the direct conflict of evidence between the statistics in the Green Paper—which many hon. Members on both sides may well have believed at the time—and those given in the book by Colin Greenwood, based on research done at the Cambridge Institute of Criminology?

Mr. Carlisle: I do not accept that it is a disagreement on the statistics as such. It may be a disagreement on what should be deduced from them. I see no basis for a Select Committee. I repeat that we are receiving numerous representations. I have already received certain deputations and made it clear that I am available to receive others, and officials will continue to be available.

Illegal Immigrants

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many immigrants who entered this country illegally have been detained by the police; and how many have been deported since the recent House of Lords judgment.

Mr. R. Carr: The information available to me is that since 1st January 1973, 94 Commonwealth citizens have been detained as suspected illegal entrants, of whom 20 have been detained since the decision of the House of Lords on 11th June. Since that date, one illegal entrant has been removed from this country and this was at his own request.

Mr. Mitchell: Will the right hon. Gentleman give a breakdown of the 20 who have been detained since the House of Lords judgment into categories of those who were known to the police and had reported to the police before the House of Lords judgment?

Mr. Carr: I cannot do that at the moment because these and all the other cases are being considered, Of the total of 94, 72 had entered before 1st January this year. Of these 72, 14 will have been removed, 13 of them before the House of Lords decision and the one that I have mentioned at his own request since. The other cases are under consideration and the point raised by the hon. Member is one of the factors about which I am inquiring.

Mr. Deedes: In view of the amount of investigatory detail likely to be involved in my right hon. Friend's policy, which may either swamp him and his officials or tend to be skimped, will he give some thought to the possibility of an independent board with powers to make recommendations to him about these matters?

Mr. Carr: This is a matter in which ministerial examination and discretion are the most appropriate ways of proceeding. So far, we are not being swamped. If we were to be swamped I should have to consider the matter.

Mr. John Fraser: Has the Home Secretary studied the report in The Times this morning that those affected by the House of Lords decision are being subjected to blackmail and intimidation and are providing for certain right wing racialists a new sport of illegal immigrant manhunting? Will he keep a careful eye on this situation and the damage it can cause to race relations?

Mr. Carr: I saw that report and I was also glad to see the remarks of the acting chief constable who made clear that there was to be no witch-hunt—those were not his words, but that is what he meant. I am about to send a circular to chief constables advising them in the terms of the statements I have made to this House and stressing the "no witch-hunt" point and the need to avoid anything that could be construed as harassment and in particular the development of any practice of asking for passports in connection with minor crimes.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Will my right hon. Friend put firmly on the record that the proper enforcement of the law is not and cannot be a witch-hunt, even if officials in the community relations industry think that it is?

Mr. Carr: Of course, proper enforcement of the law cannot be a witch-hunt. What can become a witch-hunt is the way in which people inform on their fellow citizens, and that is what we should all be concerned about. We have always taken a serious view about that in our society and I do not believe that any of us would wish to see that become any part of the enforcement of the law.

Drugs Trafficking ("Truckers' Bible")

Mr. Ronald Bell: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if, in view of the publication of information and instruction on trafficking in drugs, such as the "Truckers' Bible", a copy of which has been made available to him, he will make an assessment on the effect of such publications on the illegal drug traffic; and if he will issue advice designed to counter these publications.

Mr. Lane: I deplore the publication of this pamphlet and I understand that it is being considered by the Director of Public Prosecutions. I doubt whether the assessment suggested by my hon. and learned Friend is practicable, but we shall continue to watch the situation very closely. The Government are determined to do everything in their power to prevent drug trafficking and have strengthened the resources available for that purpose.

Mr. Bell: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that the effect of this demoralising, coarse and essentially evil document is to excuse and glamorise the trafficker in drugs and thereby to enmesh the more impressionable young people? Will he bear in mind that this document is published by a body that is a registered charity, and will he do something—if it lies within his power—to get this body unfrocked as a charity?

Mr. Lane: Some of the pamphlet certainly amounts to encouragement, but I understand that the Release organisation itself is not a charity, although it gets some finance from the Release Trust, which is a registered charity. I understand that the Charity Commissioners have recently asked for the latest accounts of the Release Trust.

Borstal (Allocation Centres)

Mr. Fowler: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will make a statement on the length of time spent at allocation centres by young offenders under borstal sentence indicating how many, during the last year, have spent over one month awaiting allocation.

Mr. Carlisle: Most young men sentenced to borstal training in England and Wales spend two or three weeks at an allocation centre. I regret that the information requested in the second part of the Question is not readily available and could not be obtained without disproportionate cost.

Mr. Fowler: That is a pity, because one young offender from Nottingham spent six weeks at an allocation centre awaiting allocation to borstal. Is not the most unsatisfactory feature of these allocation centres that they are within the walls of two prisons—Wormwood Scrubs and Strangeways Prison, Manchester, which were built in the last century? When can we afford proper allocation centres?

Mr. Carlisle: I cannot provide the answer in the form requested, but I can state that on 3rd July this year only 19 offenders in allocation centres had been there for more than one month. In the middle of 1970 the average period spent there was four months before being sent to borstal, and I hope that my hon. Friend will agree that this represents a great improvement. I accept what he says about allocation centres within existing prisons. They are in separate wings of the prisons. No doubt my hon. Friend will be aware of the two new purpose-built remand and assessment centres now being built at Glen Parva. in Leicestershire, and Feltham.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: In view of the high recidivism rate in borstals, the encouraging reports in the newspaper this morning about community service orders for young offenders, and the encouraging reports from two borstals that are deeply involved in community service projects, will the hon. and learned Gentleman consider giving to these projects, which have had such an encouraging effect both within and outside borstal, greater priority over the rules that applied in the past, which may no longer be appropriate?

Mr. Carlisle: I am grateful for what the hon. Member has said, and I welcome her comments about the community service order. The Government are anxious to expand the experiment to other areas of the country as soon as possible and we hope that the new

powers for the courts will be used. I am aware of the hon. Lady's comments about the two borstals, and here again there is encouraging evidence. We are anxious to expand all we can in dealing with more offenders in the community, and it is at that that a large part of our policies are aimed.

Mr. Grieve: Does my hon. and learned Friend accept that the rate of recidivism in borstals is high, as the hon. Member for Hitchin (Mrs. Shirley Williams) has said? Will he give the present rate? Is it not the case, in view of the frequent use of borstal as a last resort in dealing with young offenders, that the rate of those who do not return is considerable?

Mr. Carlisle: I do not have the figures that would answer my hon. and learned Friend's question. Regrettably, I have to accept what the hon. Member for Hitchin (Mrs. Shirley Williams) said. The rate of recidivism is higher than we would wish, but we are involved here with more intractable cases, and therefore any success at non-recidivism at this stage is a success that has not been achieved at some earlier stage in the penal system.

Animal Experiments

Miss Fookes: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of animal experiments carried out for the last year for which figures are available were for strictly medical purposes; and what proportion were for the other categories.

Mr. Lane: All experiments under the Cruelty to Animals Act 1876 must be performed with a view to the advancement by new discovery of physiological knowledge or of knowledge which will be useful for saving and prolonging life or alleviating suffering, but I regret that within this definition the figures are not subdivided so that "strictly medical purposes" can be identified.

Miss Fookes: Will my hon. Friend tell me why they are not so subdivided?

Mr. Lane: Because they never have been. But I shall be as helpful as I can. Of the total experiments carried out in 1971, 35 per cent. were accounted for by experiments for the diagnosis of


disease in man and animals, for the mandatory testing of drugs, and for cancer research. A large proportion of those not classified were carried out for medical purposes.

Mr. Pardoe: Will the Minister confirm that in exercising its responsibilities the Home Office interprets the law to mean that any experiment that will further scientific knowledge is legitimate? Is he aware that this is a licence to commit atrocities for any scientist who sells his moral judgment for a mess of molecules?

Mr. Lane: I reject completely what the hon. Member has said. I should like him to see several letters that I have received from my own constituents this week defending the administration of the Act for the purposes of human wellbeing and for the protection of animals.

Mr. Woodhouse: Will my hon. Friend confirm that at least wherever possible everything is done to encourage those engaged in medical research to use methods of research that do not involve experiments on animals?

Mr. Lane: Yes, Sir. The latest provisional figures that I have seen of total experiments indicate that the trend may be levelling off, or turning downwards, which rather bears out the point that my hon. Friend has made.

Consumer Protection

Mrs. Sally Oppenheim: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to introduce measures to comply with the Consumer Protection Charter adopted by the Council of Europe on 28th May 1973.

Mr. Lane: I understand that this charter is still being considered by the Council's Committee of Ministers, but so far as measures to ensure the safety of consumer goods are concerned, we shall pay proper regard to its general principles.

Mrs. Oppenheim: Is my hon. Friend aware that in 1971, the latest year for which figures are available, 8,170 children were treated in hospitals in England and Wales for the toxic effects of non-medicinal substances? Is he satisfied at having to make judgments on the need for regulations on the basis of figures already 18 months old?

Mr. Lane: We never have figures as up-to-date as we should like. I know that it is a very serious problem, and I am grateful for all that my hon. Friend does to keep it in our minds. We are now involved in particular in work in the EEC to prepare new directives for the safety and labelling of products such as the household products that my hon. Friend particularly has in mind.

Mr. Greville Janner: Is the Minister aware that the number of young children who are accidentally poisoned each year is growing considerably and that the Government are doing absolutely nothing to introduce regulations requiring poisons to be sold only in child-resistant containers?

Mr. Lane: I do not accept that for a moment. It is not a simple matter to have a totally safe system where children are involved. We must produce sensible regulations, steadily more effective, and increase our publicity—which we are doing—so that potentially dangerous things are kept out of children's reach.

Race Relations

Mr. Whitehead: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will seek to amend the Race Relations Acts to cover incitement through the medium of films.

Mr. Lane: It would be for the courts to determine whether the Act as it stands covers incitement through the medium of films. My right hon. Friend has no proposals for introducing legislation to amend the Act.

Mr. Whitehead: As the letter of the Act, in Section 6, specifically covers published and therefore printed material, wilt not the hon. Gentleman order an investigation into the use to which films are sometimes put? Will he in particular exercise his right as a member of the Conservative Party to see a film called "England, Whose England?"—a film made and circulated by elements of the Monday Club and which many people feel is a disservice to those working for racial harmony, including the hon. Gentleman's own Department?

Mr. Lane: I should strongly condemn any film that might inflame racial feelings. If we find that it is necessary to have an


investigation, of course we shall have it. But the question of what is published turns a good deal on how public the performance may be, and I have no evidence that the film the hon. Gentleman mentioned has been shown publicly, in that sense. However, we shall watch the position carefully.

Parking Offences (Diplomatic Immunity)

Mr. Greville Janner: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many and what percentage of diplomats guilty of parking violations claimed diplomatic privilege during the last 12 months for which records are available.

Mr. Worsley: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons have been charged with infringement of the parking regulations during the last convenient period and subsequently have been shown to have enjoyed diplomatic immunity.

Mr. Carlisle: The great majority of parking infringements are dealt with under the fixed penalty procedure and do not result in charges being brought. According to police records, the total number of fixed penalty notices cancelled on grounds of diplomatic immunity during the six months to the end of April 1973 was 17,557. The police report the number of incidents and the missions involved, but I regret that the records do not enable us to identify the number of different diplomats concerned in these incidents.

Mr. Janner: Does not the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that the figures show a disgraceful abuse by some diplomats of the hospitality so willingly accorded to them in this country? Will he consult the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary on how the matter can properly and decently be dealt with?

Mr. Carlisle: I will, indeed, Sir. It is the duty of persons enjoying immunity to respect the laws of the country to which they are accredited. Every month the attention of the heads of diplomatic missions is drawn to fixed penalty notices incurred by members of their staff.

Mr. Worsley: Does not my hon. and learned Friend agree that it is a com-

plete nonsense that diplomatic immunity, intended to allow diplomats to pursue their affairs without intervention by the Government, should be extended in any way to parking regulations of this sort?

Mr. Carlisle: The question of diplomatic immunity is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary. At present diplomats are entitled to claim it and, as we hear, they do claim it.

Mr. Paget: Would not a simple plan be to instruct the police to tow away any diplomat's car guilty of a parking violation?

Mr. Carlisle: That seems to be another question. One of the difficulties might be to be sure that the car is that of a diplomat and not of someone else.

Sir J. Rogers: Has my hon. and learned Friend any figures for the number of British diplomats abroad who enjoy similar immunity? If they were published, would not such figures look just as bad as the figures that he has announced today?

Mr. Carlisle: I am not in possession of those figures. Indeed, they would not come from my Department even if I had them.

Deported Persons

Mr. Atkinson: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many of those deported or removed under police supervision during the last two years from the United Kingdom still remain overseas; how many thus remain separated from their wives and children left in the United Kingdom; and if he will reconsider their position.

Mr. Lane: The total is 1,120, of whom 15 left dependent wives and children here. We review all such cases periodically or on application for a deportation order to be revoked. There is a right of appeal where revocation is refused.

Mr. Atkinson: Does the Minister thoroughly understand the suffering of those 15 families? The suffering of young families who have the husband taken away for an unspecified time and who do not know whether he will ever be allowed to rejoin them must be near to the suffering endured by a young


widow. Will the Minister instruct high commisions to inform him immediately a person is deported or forcibly extracted from this country? Will he consider directly such matters, and sympathetically encourage husbands to come back again?

Mr. Lane: I do not think that there is any need to take further steps. Many of the people deported are rejoining their families, who have been overseas all the time.

Sir D. Renton: Are the families of those who are deported given the opportunity of returning with their husbands and fathers to their country of origin at our expense?

Mr. Lane: Yes, that is so.

Mr. John Fraser: In those cases where a man has been deported and separated from his English-born wife, is not that a clear case of the immigration rules discriminating against women? Will the Home Office consider that matter afresh?

Mr. Lane: The rules about which the hon. Gentleman is talking were introduced by the Labour Government in 1969. I am glad that the Opposition now view the matter differently and disapprove of it. There is no case for altering our present rules. We look at these sorts of factors before we make a final decision about every individual deportation case.

Violent Crime (Detection Rates)

Mr. Norman Lamont: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is satisfied with the detection rates for crimes of violence in the London metropolitan area.

Mr. R. Carr: In each of the three years from 1970 to 1972 the Metropolitan Police have cleared up more than seven in 10 of known crimes of violence against the person. I regard that as a commendable performance, taking into account the policing problems of the London area.

Mr. Lamont: Has my right hon. Friend had any report from the Metropolitan Police about the deplorable attack on Professor Eynsenck at the LSE? Does he agree that the matter should have been investigated by the police? Will he comment on existing police practice in the light of the statement attributed in the Press to the

police, that as the attack took place on private property and as no complaint has been made no investigation was called for?

Mr. Carr: It is a fact that unless they are invited into private property the police do not have the right to enter, except when they have reason to apprehend in advance that there will be a major disturbance to public order. In the case to which my hon. Friend refers they had no such intimation that such a thing might happen. Subsequently—I think that my memory is right—Professor Eynsenck was interviewed and he specifically requested that no further inquiries should be made by the police.

Mrs. Castle: When considering the problem of crimes of violence, will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that although many battered wives are the victims of such crimes they are debarred under the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme from any compensation for their injuries? Will he carefully study the case of Mrs. Joan Rosina Smith, of which I have sent him particulars, and urgently review the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme so that people like Mrs. Smith can receive some compensation for their appalling injuries?

Mr. Carr: I am reviewing the scheme at the moment. I shall take into account in the review the general point made by the right hon. Lady. I shall look most carefully at the case which she has written to me about.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: I revert to the supplementary question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Norman Lamont). Is it not the case that many university authorities are now incapable of keeping the peace and obtaining free speech. That being so, should not consideration be given to the question whether a university should any longer be treated as a private place?

Mr. Carr: That would raise rather profound issues. I suspect that many people in the university world, or people interested in it, might take such a change very seriously. It is a very difficult matter.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: I absolutely agree that the record of the Metropolitan Police is excellent in respect of crimes


of violence and organised crime. However, does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the area in which a shortage of manpower shows up most severely is that of what might be described broadly as routine non-violent crimes, such as thefts and actions against property? Last year the clear-up rate of the Metropolitan Police for such crimes was 30·3 per cent. as against 49·9 per cent. for the provincial forces. Does not that indicate how serious the position is for that kind of crime in the Metropolis?

Mr. Carr: It is serious in the Metropolis and much more prevalent there than elsewhere. The more prevalent such crime is, the more difficult it is to get a high rate of clear-up.

COUNTER-INFLATION POLICY

Mr. Norman Lamont: asked the Prime Minister what plans he has for further meetings with the TUC.

Mr. Adley: asked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the progress of his talks with the TUC and CBI.

Mr. Carter: asked the Prime Minister when he next expects to meet the TUC.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Edward Heath): As I told the House on Tuesday, I shall be meeting representatives of the TUC on 27th July and of the CBI on 30th July.

Mr. Lamont: Is it not the case that the common interest between the Government and the TUC is in maintaining the rate of economic growth? As more concern has been expressed about the amount of spare capacity available for expansion in the economy, will the Government consider making available publicly, as does the Federal Reserve Board of the United States, regular estimates of the amount of spare capacity in the economy? At the least, as this matter affects confidence, will the Government, particularly in the light of the NEDO report, make fully known precisely what their views are about the amount of spare capacity in the economy?

The Prime Minister: I shall consider my hon. Friend's suggestion. We have

already told the House that we have offered to make available to both the TUC and the CBI all the information that we have about the future path of growth in this country. If my hon. Friend thinks that it would be helpful for the Government to consider whether to indicate where there is spare capacity, I am perfectly prepared to have the matter investigated.

Mr. Carter: I remind the Prime Minister of two statements that were made in the Conservative election manifesto, "A Better Tomorrow". First, it was said in that manifesto that the Conservatives were utterly opposed to wage control, and, secondly, that inflation was the direct result of devaluation. Given those two statements, how can the Prime Minister and his Government possibly expect to get a reasonable agreement from the trade unions?

The Prime Minister: We have had a perfectly reasonable arrangement since last November. We went in detail over the whole of this ground with the TUC and the CBI. We then accepted responsibility for taking the action. There has been co-operation from the employers and from the leaders of most of the unions. I do not see why, in continuing the talks as we are doing, we should not work out a situation that will allow greater cooperation between all concerned and a steady increase in growth. That must be to the interests of the unions just as much as to the rest of the country.

Mr. Adley: Has my right hon. Friend seen, published today, a general household survey? Further, has he seen the third leader in The Times this morning entitled, "Britain: a rather comfortable country"? Whilst I recognise that there are selected pockets of hardship which need to respond to selectivity, does not my right hon. Friend agree that the survey shows a picture of a country very different from that which is frequently and vehemently painted by the Opposition? Are not the Opposition, as usual, being thoroughly hypocritical in the way that they are trying to use food prices and other issues to damage the Government?

The Prime Minister: I agree that that is the outcome of the survey. It is true


that the Government have done more than any other Government to help specific deprived groups in the community. Nobody can deny that. It is also true that much still remains to be done. That can be achieved only by sustained growth, which we hope to keep at its present rate. It is in the interests of everyone that that Growth should be sustained.

Mr. Healey: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House how he will justify to the TUC the fact that since last November real wages have been falling although the nation's wealth has been increasing at the rate of 5 per cent. and that profits have been increasing at more than twice that rate?

The Prime Minister: If the right hon. Gentleman wants to deal with profits first I can tell him that the TUC has acknowledged—this was part of the structure of the talks—that if the investment which it wants is to be achieved there must be an increase in profitability over the very low levels of the last part of the 1960s. There is no disagreement about this. In any case, profits are controlled under the code, and the code has as one of its key features the firm control of the level of profitability.

Mr. Healey: rose—

Sir Harmar Nicholls: Is there any way whereby the Government and the TUC can get together to work out a formula that will deal with the situation which sometimes arises at works meetings when people are honestly trying to work out disputes but disruptive elements infiltrate as though they were bona fide employees with a view to upsetting the whole thing?

The Prime Minister: There may be difficulties of a particular kind such as my hon. Friend mentions. I think I know the case to which he refers. This is a matter in which those concerned in the factories must be able to use their influence and reach a reasonable understanding.

Mr. Healey: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will recall that a moment ago the Prime Minister said that he would first deal with the question why profits had risen—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I was about to call the right hon. Gentleman again for a

supplementary question. The content of an answer is not a matter of order.

Mr. Healey: I am grateful. Now that the Prime Minister has purported to explain why profits have been rising at over 30 per cent. will he tell us how he will explain to the TUC that wages have been falling, in real terms, over the past nine months?

The Prime Minister: What I will tell the TUC is that with the standstill having extended over the last quarter of 1972 and the first quarter of this year a comparison with the previous six months will show that during the standstill real disposable income rose by 2·1 per cent. That is what I will tell the TUC. I will go on to say that during the first six months of the Labour Government's freeze in 1966 personal disposable income fell by 2·5 per cent. compared with the previous six months. That is the difference between the two standstills.

Mr. Harold Wilson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the 12 months following the Labour Government's four-and-a-half-months' statutory freeze the cost of living index rose by 1·4 per cent.? Is he further aware that during the whole of his six-months' freeze the cost of living rose at 9½ per cent. per annum?

Hon. Members: Answer.

The Prime Minister: I will answer all right. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman recognises that the terms of trade during that time remained almost stationary. [Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman professes to be an economist and statistician, yet he cannot understand the simplest thing about the terms of trade. The terms of trade in that period remained stationary, whereas the Economist index showed that during our period of freeze the cost of raw materials had gone up 70 per cent.

SPEECH THERAPY

Mr. Pavitt: asked the Prime. Minister if he will make one Minister responsible for all speech therapy training and provision..

The Prime Minister: Speech therapy services will become the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of


State for Social Services in England and of the respective Secretaries of State in Scotland and Wales as part of the reorganisation of the health service. No decisions have yet been reached on the recommendations in the Quirk Report about speech therapy training.

Mr. Pavitt: Is the Prime Minister seized of the importance to a specially deprived group of the crisis that exists in this service? Is he further aware that, although after 1st April next the responsibility will rest with the health services rather than the education services, the crisis is such that there will be little left of speech therapy, first, unless action is taken immediately to implement the Quirk Report recommendations and, secondly, unless it is taken by the end of September to deal with the anomalies between the pay scales of those employed in the education sector and the health sector, respectively?

The Prime Minister: I recognise the importance of this matter, which the hon. Gentleman has previously raised in the House. My right hon. Friend has made an announcement about the organisation. The other decisions are now being considered. Included in such matters is that of provision of therapists. The Department has been consulting all the organisations concerned which naturally takes a little time. I recognise the urgency of the matter. It has not been suggested, so far as I am aware, that the anomalies might be put to the Pay Board. I shall look into this.

Mr. Costain: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the excellent work that this profession is doing, particularly of rehabilitation after a road accident involving brain damage? Will he make sure that nothing is done to hamper that good work?

The Prime Minister: I can certainly give my hon. Friend that undertaking. The real problem is how to get a greater supply of those who can help in these circumstances.

Mr. Driberg: Does the phrase "speech therapy training" include training for autistic children and adolescents, for whom, at present, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, the provision is totally inadequate?

The Prime Minister: This is part of the same problem. Obviously these children are included among those for whom provision has to be made.

SPAIN

Mr. Ridsdale: asked the Prime Minister if he will seek to pay an official visit to Spain.

The Prime Minister: I have at present no plans to do so, Sir.

Mr. Ridsdale: Even if the Prime Minister does not make this visit, will he look into the position of 41,000 retirement pensioners abroad, 3,000 of whom live in Spain, who have not been getting the increased pension from the date they left the United Kingdom? Since these pensioners are no strain on our resources, because they do not use our housing, food or fuel, surely we should do something to help these least well-off, following the fall in the value of sterling. Is this not a debt of honour that we owe to such pensioners?

The Prime Minister: We are trying to reach reciprocal agreement with Spain on this matter. We have made progress in recent weeks and I hope that before long it will be possible to conclude an agreement dealing with the problem.

Mr. Terry Davis: Would the Prime Minister not like to have the opportunity to talk not only to British pensioners living in Spain but to those Spanish citizens who have just returned from Mozambique?

The Prime Minister: That is an internal matter for the Spanish authorities. It is not a matter for me.

FOOD SUBSIDIES

Mr. Joel Barnett: asked the Prime Minister if he will institute an interdepartmental inquiry into the consequences of selective food subsidies.

The Prime Minister: As I have already made clear, the Government have considered this question very carefully. There are overwhelming arguments against any general measures of this kind. But I am always ready to discuss any particular proposal for action on prices.

Mr. Barnett: Does the Prime Minister agree with the Chancellor's massive condemnation of food subsidies, which presumably would be endorsed by his hon. and right hon. Friends? If he does, is he really acting in good faith in negotiating with the TUC and telling it that he is prepared to consider food subsidies?

The Prime Minister: What my right hon. Friend said was that there were certain specific instances of food subsidies that were not only being considered or discussed but had been implemented, and are still being implemented. What he was arguing against was what would undoubtedly be massive and expensive subsidies for particular items that are in short supply in the world.

Sir Gilbert Longden: Will my right hon. Friend once again make it clear to the Opposition that if necessities are scarce, and therefore dear, and are artificially made cheaper by State subsidies but are not rationed, those who are rich will get more than those who are poor?

The Prime Minister: That is absolutely true, but it is difficult to get that into their heads.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: Will the Prime Minister give an undertaking that if the floating pound is devalued in the next two months by the same amount as it was devalued in the past two months, namely, 6 per cent., he will give the matter his urgent reconsideration?

The Prime Minister: I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's hypothesis. What I said was that if the TUC or the CBI wish to put arguments on any aspect of food prices I am prepared to listen to them.

Mr. Redmond: Does my right hon. Friend realise that many of us have no objection whatever to being taxed in order to help those worse off than we are, but that we object very strongly to being taxed to provide cheaper food for wealthy people, like the Leader of the Opposition—to name but a few?

The Prime Minister: That has always been one of the major arguments against food subsidies across the board. It is an argument that the TUC has discussed with us in previous talks, and that it

accepts. It has no desire to see indiscriminate and vast food subsidies given across the board because it knows perfectly well that they can be paid for only out of additional taxation, which is either indirectly putting up prices or directly cutting back the pay packet.

Mr. Thorpe: As the cost of food has increased by 35 per cent. since the Government took office, and as the right hon. Gentleman thinks that what the Labour Government did, compared with the Tory Government, is producing dividends to the Tory Party of only three-figure votes at by-elections, will he tell us whether, when he meets the TUC—[Interruption.] I am sorry that the Prime Minister has difficulty in hearing me because of the wild men behind him. I shall try to speak louder. Will he confirm that when he meets the TUC and the CBI at the end of the month he will be fully briefed from the "think tank", or such other sources as he draws upon, about the possibility of extending the credit income tax system to cover both housing and rates, the possibility of guaranteed minimum earnings, threshold agreements and, last but not least, implementing—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The House has a great deal of business to do today. It will do it better with less noise and, perhaps, more brevity.

Mr. Thorpe: —and, last but not least, implementing the Tory Party's promise that it would increase family allowances? Will the right hon. Gentleman give an undertaking that he will put all those forward in the talks at the end of this month?

The Prime Minister: At previous meetings with the TUC we have discussed these matters—the question of a minimum incomes policy, thresholds and family allowances—as well as the general situation of earnings and prices. As I have told the House before, both the CBI and the TUC said that they wished to do further work on these matters before our next meetings. We shall be able to consider the results at the next meetings on 27th and 30th July.

Mr. Harold Wilson: Why does the right hon. Gentleman refuse to provide money to keep prices down when, under the terms he negotiated with the Common Market, he must pay hundreds of millions


of pounds of housewives' money to keep prices up in Europe? Is he prepared to accept the payment of a further £30 million fine from the taxpayers and housewives of this country in order to maintain the butter mountain?

The Prime Minister: The world prices of most commodities that we receive from the European Community are already higher than the intervention prices for the Community. Therefore, the problem that the right hon. Gentleman continually imagines does not arise.

Mr. Wilson: Does the Prime Minister accept or repudiate the estimate of £500 million given to the Lobby journalists by the then Minister for Europe two years ago?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that what he has said is untrue and that the figures of hundreds of millions which are constantly mentioned by him and the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) bear no relationship to the truth.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Mrs. Castle: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Does it deal with Questions'?

Mrs. Castle: Yes, Mr. Speaker. It arises out of my Question No. Q12 to the Prime Minister.
I am well aware that you are powerless to prevent the Prime Minister from transferring Questions even when they relate to his direct responsibility for co-ordinating the work of Government Departments. However, may I ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether you can protect back-bench Members to the extent of ensuring that the Prime Minister does not delay informing the Member concerned that the Question has been transferred until the day after the Minister to whom it has been transferred was top for Questions, as was the case with my Question to the Prime Minister, which asked him to ensure that North-East Lancashire did not suffer as a result of the Hardman Report?

Mr. Speaker: As the right hon. Lady pointed out, that is not a matter for the Chair, but I have no doubt that her point will have been noted.

COMMON AGRICULTURAL POLICY

Mr. Shore: (by Private Notice) asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's policy towards a request by the EEC Commission for a further £29 million to help finance the CAP.

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. John Davies): I am aware that the Commission is considering the need for supplementary provision for the 1973 Community Budget but no proposal has yet been put forward.

Mr. Shore: Is it not the case that on all the Government's own estimates such a request will come before the Council of Ministers' meeting on Monday and that once the request is accepted this House will have no opportunity to deal with it but will be faced with a fait accompli? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the sums of money which have been widely reported as being part of the Commission's request—sums equal to 800 million dollars this year alone—indicate that the CAP is absolutely out of hand?
As the matter is due to come before the Council of Ministers early next week, will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House what will be the attitude of Her Majesty's Government to it? Will he take the same view as he took when the question of the butter mountain and the Russian subsidy came before them on the last occasion when they said that they had no responsibility in the matter and abstained? Will he this time exercise his proper responsibilities?

Mr. Davies: I have no advice to the effect that this matter will come before the Council of Ministers early next week.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: If and when the matter comes before the Council of Ministers, will my right hon. Friend lend his powerful support to the proposition which I have put before the European Parliament that these matters be canvassed in public in the Council of Ministers so that the consumers in the nine member States may have a close-up view of some of the anomalies and absurdities of the present workings of the common agricultural policy, which may hasten its review and revision?

Mr. Davies: The matter of procedural changes in the work of the Council of Ministers will come before the Council later this month. Issues of this kind may then be discussed. It does not seem to me that public access to at least anticipatory information is lacking.

Dame Irene Ward: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In order to get the record straight, may I ask how the right hon. Member for Stepney (Mr. Shore) obtained leave to ask a Private Notice Question if his information was not correct?

Mr. Speaker: The one question which the hon. Lady is not entitled to ask is how an hon. or right hon. Member obtains or does not obtain leave to ask a Private Notice Question.

Mr. Shore: In view of what the right hon. Gentleman has not been able to tell the House, will he guarantee that he will not agree to any such proposal until he first reports the matter to the House?

Mr. Davies: I shall await the arrival of a formal proposal before considering what action the Government should take.

Mr. Milne: When will the right hon. Gentleman cease treating the House with contempt in regard to information about the Community? On the last occasion that he addressed the House he adopted an identical tactic, thus underlining the fact that the House no longer has any authority over decisions taken in the Community and that what is now needed is a drastic review of the decision which we took on 28th October 1971.

Mr. Davies: On the contrary, I have always taken the view, since I have had to discuss these matters in the House, that the House is not only fully informed of proposals but has access to many methods of discussing them in the House. As the hon. Gentleman knows, I am never loath to discuss practical matters. However, the point raised by the right hon. Member for Stepney (Mr. Shore) was entirely hypothetical.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must protect the Opposition's time. This is a Supply Day and there are two topics for debate.

There are also two statements to be made.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: If it is not in order to question the acceptance of Private Notice Questions, may I ask how it is that a question which has no relevance—as we know from the answer—and which is based upon an untrue hypothesis, is accepted? When back-bench Members wish to ask a Private Notice Question they have to give a clear explanation of what is behind it. Why does not the same rule apply to Front Bench spokesmen?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member is not entitled to go into this matter. It is a matter for my discretion. I am entrusted by the House with the power to make a decision. I decide and I do not give my reasons.

Mr. Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will you, Mr. Speaker, take into account that on several recent occasions—including the last meeting—question time at the European Assembly has been brought to a halt because the Minister concerned was attending a function in this country? Will you ensure that this disease is not catching?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I can tell the hon. Gentleman straight away that that is not a matter for me.

SECURITY COMMISSION'S REPORT

The Prime Minister (Mr. Edward Heath): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement.
I told the House on 14th June that the Security Commission had been invited to verify that security was not endangered as a result of the incidents referred to in my statement on 24th May 1973 or by the actions of the persons involved.—[Vol. 857, c. 666–8.]
The Commission has now submitted its report to me. It is being published in full this afternoon. Copies are available in the Vote Office.
As a result of its inquiries the commission concludes categorically that no classified information was in fact communicated directly or indirectly to the intelligence service of any potentially


hostile power as a result of the incidents in question. It concludes that, in the case of the right hon. and noble Lord, Lord Jellicoe, there was no potential danger to security that would have justified denying him further access to highly classified information, had he continued in office. In the case of the former hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, the commission would have felt compelled to recommend that he should be denied access to classified information.
The commission has come across no evidence worthy of credence that any Minister other than the former hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed was involved with Norma Levy or other members of that ring.
The commission has found no related failure of security arrangements as they existed at the time in the Civil Service Department, the Ministry of Defence or elsewhere. It does, however, make a number of suggestions for ways in which the existing security procedures could be improved.
The commission concludes that the practical difficulties involved in trying to apply the process of positive vetting for Ministers are insuperable, but it does make the following recommendations:

(i) Any Minister appointed to a post in which he will handle more sensitive information than he has been used to handling in his previous appointment should be given a supplementary briefing by the Security Service additional to that which he receives on his first appointment.
(ii) Security containers are already provided in the homes of those Ministers who request them because they take secret documents home more than occasionally. In future security containers should be provided in the homes of all Cabinet Ministers. They should also be provided in the homes of other Ministers who handle any substantial volume of sensitive material. There should be a careful reexamination of the need for this precaution in the homes of all Ministers not in the Cabinet.
(iii) Permanent Secretaries should ensure that the attention of Ministers who do not have such containers should be drawn to any significant increase in the number of secret papers that they take home, and that all Ministers should receive all possible help in fulfilling their personal security responsibilities.
(iv) For Ministers in some appointments, Security Service briefing on arrangements for personnel and physical security should be expanded or supplemented.
(v) Whenever a new Minister joins a Department, the Permanent Secretary should ensure that that Minister is appropriately briefed on

departmental security arrangements, and is content with the adequacy of the security briefings provided.
(vi) When a Minister is first appointed he is already briefed by the Security Service on the basic threat to our security and the system of protective security, and his attention is drawn to the standing instructions on precautions against unauthorised disclosures of information. The Prime Minister should additionally issue guidance for Ministers on the potential security implications of scandalous behaviour and of other circumstances which might expose them to pressure by hostile intelligence agents; and Ministers should be required to refer to such guidance on appointment and from time to time subsequently.

The commission also suggests that any Prime Minister contemplating the appointment as a Minister of someone who was not until recently a Member of either House, and who may not therefore be well known to him or his senior political colleagues, should bear in mind the desirability of satisfying himself that there is no character defect or other circumstance which would mean that the appointment of that person would endanger security.
I have accepted all these recommendations and suggestions. I am also arranging for the attention of all Ministers to be recalled regularly to the standing instructions and guidance on security matters.

Mr. Harold Wilson: The right hon. Gentleman was good enough to give me a copy of his statement, as is the usual practice in these matters. When the House has had time to study the report, which raises important questions, I suggest that there should be a debate on the report and on its implications for security. The House may feel, after studying the report, that some of the announcements made by the right hon. Gentleman about containers and other factual security arrangements cover very sensitive matters.
Is it a fact that Ministers were not given the same degree of specific briefing on security that was instituted in 1964 and 1965? Despite what the right hon. Gentleman said in his statement, it appears from a brief public statement by one of the ex-Ministers concerned that he seemed not to have much recollection of the briefing and was not clear whether he had been positively vetted. We all know that Ministers are not positively vetted.
The statement refers to the ring of call girls. Was the commission able to secure direct evidence from the prostitutes concerned, or was that precluded by their absence abroad and by the police threat of charges were they to come to this country?
On the question of departmental procedures—which were discussed in exchanges between the right hon. Gentleman and myself and to which reference is made in the statement and in the report—is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that the departmental procedures are working as thoroughly as hitherto, for example, in relation to the duties of Private Office as opposed to Permanent Secretaries' special responsibilities and the control of the use of official cars for extramural activities?

The Prime Minister: I think that the House will wish to study the report carefully, as the right hon. Gentleman suggested. Then, no doubt soundings can be taken on whether the House wishes to debate the matter further.
There has been no weakening in the security procedures which were introduced in 1964 by the right hon. Gentleman. Briefing of all Ministers on security continues as before and is as full as possible. I was asked about instructions to Ministers, given out by every Prime Minister when he takes office and revised from time to time. In many ways they have been strengthened, quite naturally, with recent developments, and in the course of years, from the instructions which were sent out by the right hon. Gentleman. This process normally takes place from administration to administration.
On the right hon. Gentleman's question about call girls, he will recall from his time as Prime Minister that the Prime Minister of the day has no information from the Security Commission other than that which is presented in the report. The report does not state the names of those who were interviewed by the Security Commission, but it is known that Norma Levy, who is referred to in the report, has been abroad and that a warrant has been out for her arrest. I think this means that it must not have been possible for the Security Commission to

see her. I have no knowledge of those who were interviewed by the Security Commision. That is the Commission's responsibility.
As for the private office, there is no mention of that matter in the Security Commission's report. There was one allegation in the Press of an official car having been seen outside the block of flats which was used by the former hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, but it is also mentioned in the course of the Security Commission's report that this block of flats was only a few yards from his home and there is no mention in the records of the car driver of a particular journey to that place. As the right hon. Gentleman probably knows, there are certain specific regulations covering the use of official cars at the Ministry of Defence.
On the question of official briefing, it is true that in a television interview the former Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed gave the impression that he had been positively vetted. He was obviously confusing this with the briefing he received when he became a Minister. It is perhaps understandable, in the circumstances of his resignation and the interview, that this confusion occurred.

Mr. Wilson: I am grateful to the Prime Minister for those answers, and indeed for his statement that there should be discussions through the usual channels about a debate on the report. I do not wish to anticipate the main finding in the report, because hon. Members in general have not had an opportunity to read it, but would the right hon. Gentleman agree that, compared with Press reports, there is a new dimension in the situation, namely the drugs dimension, which clearly worried the Security Commission and which is a matter to which all of us, without rushing into the matter, should give a lot more thought—and this applies to Government, Opposition, the security authorities and the House as a whole'? Is he aware that there is son-le reason to believe—without my going too much into painful matters—that so much were drugs in the centre of this picture—rather than some of the salacious matters covered in the Press—that there is reason to think that the noble Lord, Lord Jellicoe, was to some extent an innocent victim of the


use of the name "Jellicoe", with no relation to himself at all, because of code words in connection with drug passing? Would he agree that in regard to the noble Lord, Lord Jellicoe, one should treat this matter with a certain degree of humanity and sympathy?

The Prime Minister: The House always considers these matters with humanity and understanding. I know that the right hon. Gentleman would want it to be clear that there was no question whatever of drugs of any kind in regard to the noble Lord, Lord Jellicoe. It is obvious from the report, as hon. Members will see when they read it, that in respect of the former Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, this matter did give the Security Commission considerable anxiety. This is a matter which must be considered, in the view of the Security Commission in regard to the position of Ministers, the Opposition and all those who may have access to security information.

Mr. Tapsell: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is some anxiety in the country lest the growing obsession with security may itself pose certain threats to the future good government of this country, bearing in mind that many of the great men in the past who have guided this country through great national crises might have been excluded from British national life if some of these criteria had been applied?

The Prime Minister: I think that when my hon. Friend the Member for Horn-castle (Mr. Tapsell) reads the report, he will see that the Security Commission has put forward proposals which it thinks will be a practical means of dealing with security. At the same time it expresses the view that it is not its responsibility to make moral judgments.

Mr. Grimond: Although no doubt this is a valuable report which will need study, and although it contains practical recommendations, will the Prime Minister, following the question which has just been put to him by the hon. Member for Horn-castle (Mr. Tapsell), guarantee that security is not made an excuse for investigations into the private lives of Ministers in cases where it is obvious from the start that no security can possibly be involved?

The Prime Minister: The Security Commission makes it quite plain that it does not consider it its duty to make moral judgments on people's behaviour or to inquire into them for that purpose. When the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) says that it is obvious that there was no security risk, he must remember that those who have had to deal with security matters know that the situation may not always be quite as simple as that.

Mr. Heffer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Am I entitled to move that we proceed to the next business?

Mr. Speaker: It is within my discretion to decide whether I would accept such a motion.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: Will this report mean that in future any hon. Member who is unable to pass the standard positive security vetting—for instance for having as a young man been a member of the Communist Party—will never be able to be appointed Secretary of State for Defence under any Government?

The Prime Minister: The Security Commission makes it absolutely plain that it regards positive vetting of Ministers as out of the question, and one has only to consider the practical difficulties of the formation of a Government, and so on, to recognise the difficulty. But the Commission also says that in a political party colleagues have been working together for a long time and therefore a Prime Minister must accept his responsibilities and recognise the characteristics, but it makes a suitable recommendation about somebody who is brought into a Government and into either House from outside.

Mr. Wellbeloved: Does the Prime Minister recall that paragraph 10 of Command 9715 on security, published in 1956, laid down in terms of civil servants and members of the Armed Forces that loose living was a security risk? Will he ensure that we do not apply double standards—one standard for political Ministers and another standard for civil servants and members of the Armed Forces? Will he also bear in mind that there is concern about the delay which occurred from early April to 21st May in


taking action in the Lambton case, which seems to suggest that if it had not been for public disclosure in national newspapers this matter might not even have reached the Security Commission?

The Prime Minister: There is no question of double standards. When the hon. Gentleman reads the Security Commission's report he will see that the action of Ministers was judged in the light of what they themselves laid down for those in the Civil Service. This is the first occasion on which the Security Commission has considered a question in which a Minister was involved.
The Commission points out that the character of the person concerned whether a Minister or a civil servant, has to be taken into account in assessing a security risk in particular circumstances. This applies to all those who have to handle security matters.
There is absolutely no truth whatever in the allegation contained in the hon. Gentleman's comments at the end of his supplementary question. As the Security Commission points out, this matter was brought to the notice of the security services long before any question of it appeared in the public Press or in public discussions. Action was taken at once because I asked for immediate advice whether any security factor was involved, and I was told that it was not. That matter also is set out.

Dr. David Owen: Is the Prime Minister satisfied that he is exercising his democratic responsibilities in not knowing the full basis on which the Security Commission came to its findings? Is there not a case for the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition at least to know the basis on which the Commission comes to its conclusions, the people from whom it takes evidence, and so on? How is the House to exercise democratic control of the security of the country when the matter is pushed off to a body which is not answerable on any democratic basis?

The Prime Minister: My two predecessors took the same view as I do—that the Security Commission is an entirely independent body and that when it produces a report, that report must contain its arguments for its conclusions and any recommendations it may make. The same

applies in this case. I agree that the hon. Gentleman has raised a very important issue, but it is a matter of judgment whether the independence of the Security Commission should not be completely safeguarded in this way.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Harold Wilson: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he will state the business for next week?

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. James Prior): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY, 16TH JULY—Supply (28th Allotted Day). There will be a debate on an Opposition motion on Scottish Affairs.
Consideration of Lords Amendments to the Social Security Bill.
Proceedings on the Statute Law (Repeals) Bill (Lords).
TUESDAY, 17TH JULY—Until Seven o'clock there will be a debate on the visit of the Portuguese Premier, which will arise on a motion for the adjournment of the House.
Afterwards, remaining stages of the Insurance Companies Bill (Lords).
Any Lords Amendments to the Northern Ireland Constitution Bill and to the Water Bill.
WEDNESDAY, 18TH JULY—Supply (29th Allotted Day). The Question will be put on all outstanding Votes.
Debate on an Opposition motion of No Confidence on Inflation.
Consideration of any Lords Amendments to the Fair Trading Bill.
THURSDAY, 19TH JULY—Second Reading of the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill.
FRIDAY, 20TH JULY—Private Members' Bills.
MONDAY, 23RD JULY—Remaining stages of the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill.
Debate on the Reports of the Pay Board and Price Commission.
The House will wish to know that, subject to the progress of business, it will


be proposed that the House should adjourn at the end of the week after next, until Tuesday, 16th October.

Mr. Harold Wilson: The House will have heard the right hon. Gentleman's last few words with some degree of satisfaction, although a great deal of important business remains to be debated before then.
On Tuesday, we shall be debating the visit of the Portuguese Prime Minister. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, following the discussions through the usual channels about the debate, we would like to thank him for his part? The time will be supplied by the Opposition from the half-day borrowed by the Government during the last Session. I understand that the Government had intended to devote the whole day to the other business which the right hon. Gentleman has announced for Tuesday, and in view of the accommodation of the Government in the matter, we shall do our best, as he has been told, to facilitate the Government's business on the Insurance Companies Bill and the other legislation and we shall try to get it through by a reasonable hour.

Mr. Prior: I confirm that the position regarding Tuesday's business is as the right hon. Gentleman stated. I shall be grateful for the co-operation of the Opposition on the other business following the debate on the visit of the Portuguese Prime Minister.

Sir F. Bennett: Is my right hon. Friend aware that on 20th March I asked when an announcement would be made, one way or another, on the review of the law of picketing by the Home Secretary? I was told that it would be made within two weeks. The two weeks have long since passed and a whole series of other reasons has been given for not making the announcement, the most recent being that there is a case before the courts. Will there be an announcement before the recess or is the House to be kept in the dark until next Session?

Mr. Prior: My hon. Friend has had an answer from my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on this subject, and I have to tell him now that, as notice of appeal to another place has been lodged in a case which concerns an important aspect of the law relating to picketing,

my right hon. Friend proposes to defer his statement giving the Government's conclusions about the law of picketing until the appeal has been decided.

Mr. McBride: My Private Member's Bill, the Alkali Inspectorate Bill, passed through the Committee stage on 13th and 20th June. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that at 3.5 p.m. today no copies of the OFFICIAL REPORT of the Committee proceedings were in the Vote Office? Does he realise that this places an inhibition on hon. Members in preparing for the Report stage? In view of the importance of this measure to deal with pollution of the air, will the right hon. Gentleman see that sufficient time is given to the Bill to enable it to have a complete Report stage and proper discussion, since obviously, on 20th July, it is likely to receive hopelessly inadequate time for its Report stage, with four other Bills preceding it?

Mr. Prior: I must tell the hon. Gentleman that I could not allow any additional time for discussion of his Bill or any other private Members' Bills which hon. Members might like to see on the Statute Book. I am sorry if there has been some printing delay of the reports of the Committee proceedings, but I understand that the transcripts are now available and I hope that the printing will soon be carried out.

Major-General Jack d'Avigdor Goldsmid: Are we to have a debate on the report of the Nugent Committee, and, if so, when?

Mr. Prior: There could not be a debate on the report before the recess, but I will consider it along with other outstanding issues for debate at a late stage.

Mr. Thorpe: Now that the right hon. Gentleman has announced the dates for the recess, is he aware that unless a writ for Berwick-upon-Tweed is moved before we rise, the electors of that constituency will remain unrepresented for very nearly six months? May we take it that the writ will be moved next week, or at any rate the week after?

Mr. Prior: As the right hon. Gentleman knows quite well, that is a matter for the Government, since the last Member for the constituency was a member of


the governing party. I can never quite understand whether the Liberals think they gain most from an early by-election or a late one.

Mr. Evelyn King: Has my right hon. Friend seen Early Day Motion No. 354, which draws attention to the slightly unusual decision by the Government that war widows—that is, young war widows—whose husbands were killed in 1973 or thereafter are to receive an additional pension, whereas older and sometimes more infirm war widows whose husbands were killed many years ago receive no comparable benefit? The motion is signed by hon. Members of all three parties in almost equal proportions. There is considerable concern about the matter. Will my right hon. Friend give the House an opportunity to discuss the principle which lies behind the decision?

[That this House, while expressing its deepest sympathy to recent service widows and acknowledging that no financial payment, however great, can compensate them for their loss, welcomes the Government's payment from 31st March 1973, to service widows of £2,650 and a pension of £39 per week, but finds the differentiation in terms of compensation to these service widows, compared with war widows, whose loss was no less great, inequitable, and calls upon Her Majesty's Government, who have done more for pensioners, including war widows, than any other government, to end this injustice by awarding a non-retrospective pension to all war widows not in receipt of a National Insurance Retirement Pension, equal to that which is being awarded to 1973 service widows.]

Mr. Prior: I am aware of the anxiety that hon. Members feel on this subject. The difficulty for the Government is that any improvement one makes at any time shows up perhaps some other things one would like to do. The basic war widow's pension has been increased from £8·80 to £10·10 and the special war widow's age allowance from £1 to £1·30. An elderly war widow will thus be getting £11·40 compared with £9·80, which itself compares with only £7·25 in June 1970. The Government are also committed to annual reviews. While I appreciate that hon. Members want to go further more

quickly, the Government have an excellent record.

Mr. Spriggs: Will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider his reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. McBride) about the final stages of the Alkali Inspectorate Bill? Large numbers of my constituents live in fear of damage to the health of their families through pollution of the atmosphere. Will the right hon. Gentleman give the House an opportunity to pass judgment on this valuable Bill?

Mr. Prior: The views on this Bill are, to say the least, mixed, and I do not believe that it would be right for the Government to give special time for it when there are so many other considerations before the House.

Mr. Money: In the light of the deep concern which has been expressed in certain sectors of the Press in the past week over the recent series of tests on Department of Health and Social Security invalid vehicles, can my right hon. Friend either arrange for a debate on this subject or invite his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services to make a statement?

Mr. Prior: Certainly I will talk to my right hon. Friend about this matter, which everyone in the House knows to be an important issue. It could perhaps form the subject of a short debate in the business for next week.

Mrs. Castle: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen Early Day Motion No. 397 which already has been signed by nearly 200 hon. Members representing all parties in the House and which sets out a way in which we could begin at last properly to remunerate the secretaries to whom hon. Members owe so much?
In view of the unfairness of the present situation, both to secretaries and to hon. Members themselves, will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that we have an opportunity at an early date to discuss this matter in the House?

[That this House considers that the salaries of Members' secretaries should be aligned to an appropriate Civil Service salary structure, and that payment should


be made front a central body with each Member nominating a secretary who shall receive the payment and with each Member retaining the right of appointment and termination.]

Mr. Prior: Before the House carried out a suggestion of this kind it would need very careful thought. It would be a considerable change, as the right hon. Lady recognises, in the method of employment of secretaries. Certainly it is not an easy problem. But I am considering the whole matter. Hon. Members in all parts of the House will know that this is not a particularly easy one.

Mr. Waddington: On Tuesday we are to have another three-hour debate. In view of the fact that such debates can be very successful but can also be ruined by the selfishness of one or two backbench Members, may I commend to my right hon. Friend's attention Early Day Motion No. 388 on the subject of shorter speeches? Will my right hon. Friend try to arrange a debate on the subject as soon as possible?

[That this House, noting the success of recent short debates, instructs the Select Committee on Procedure to propose a scheme for limiting the length of speeches in such debates.]

Mr. Prior: The best way for the House to help on all this is to implement the suggestion in that motion. It is what the House did in a recent debate. I hope that the practice will be followed.

Mr. George Grant: In view of the announcement in the national Press this morning that the National Coal Board is negotiating the hiving-off of the profitable Northern Brick Company, bearing in mind the fact that the unions have just completed protracted negotiations on the possibilities of setting up holding companies and subsidiaries, and bearing in mind also the damaging effect that this development could have on industrial relations for the mining industry, will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry will make a statement on this matter next week?

Mr. Prior: I shall consult my right hon. Friend on this matter. But it seems to me that it lies primarily within the responsibility of the National Coal Board to make such a decision.

Mr. Marten: In view of the fact that between now and the time that we rise for the Summer Recess there are to be several meetings of the Council of Ministers, may we have an assurance that each Minister' attending a meeting of the Council of Ministers in Brussels will come back to this House and report on that meeting? We want to know what goes on.

Mr. Prior: I think that it would be much better if we stuck to the usual arrangement, which is that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster makes a general report when appropriate on what has been happening in the Council of Ministers. But if some specific point arises concerning another Minister and it is of sufficient importance to take up the time of the House. I shall arrange for that Minister to come to the House to make a statement.

Mr. Jay: As there is to be a series of meetings of the EEC Council of Ministers between 16th and 24th July, cannot we be assured that each Minister involved will report to this House?

Mr. Prior: It will "be much better for the progress of the business of this House if we carry on in the way in which we have arranged these matters in the past few months.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

CONSOLIDATED FUND BILL (PROCEDURE)

Mr. Speaker: We must move on. I have a statement to make.
For the debate on Thursday 19th July, on the Second Reading of the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill, hon. Members may hand into my office by 9.30 on the morning of Wednesday 18th July, their names and the topics which they wish to raise. The ballot will be carried out as on the last occasion. An hon. Member may hand in only his own name and one topic.
The debate on the Second Reading of this Bill is, in the words of Erskine May on page 729 of the 18th Edition,
commensurate with the whole range of administrative policy".
It covers, for example, all the main Estimates originally presented for the,


current financial year (in House of Commons Papers 112 and 114) and the Revised and Supplementary Estimates presented since then (in House of Commons Papers 315, 316 and 317). It will

be in order, on Second Reading, to raise any topic falling within the compass of these Estimates.
I shall put out the result of the ballot later on Wednesday 18th July.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

[27TH ALLOTTED DAY],—considered.

Orders of the Day — LIVE ANIMALS (EXPORT)

4.15 p.m.

Mr. Eric Deakins: I beg to move,
That this House shares the growing concern about the conditions under which animals for slaughter are exported, transported and slaughtered overseas; welcomes the recent Government decision to suspend the issuing of export licences for live sheep; and, mindful of animal welfare, calls upon Her Majesty's Government to establish an independent inquiry into this trade, and in the meantime to suspend the issuing of licences for the export of live animals for slaughter overseas.

Mr. Speaker: I should inform the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister and several of his right hon. Friends, in line 6, at end add:
to any country where there is evidence that the Balfour Assurances are not being kept".
I have a very long list of speakers.

Mr. Deakins: The House will know of my interest in agricultural matters. But the interest that I have in animal welfare is, I believe, one which is shared by every single hon. Member present today.
The subject of animal welfare is an emotional matter for some people. But on such an occasion as this I think it is best debated rationally. What we lose in heat we may hope to gain in clarity.
Public concern about this matter has been expressed in a number of ways: in the size of the postbags of Members of Parliament, in the volume of Parliamentary Questions, in the three motions on the Order Paper, and above all, in the dedicated work of animal welfare societies and individuals basically responsible for the evidence which earlier this year forced the Government to suspend the operation of licences for sheep exports. These societies and individuals have now produced an even more impressive body of evidence on the cattle export trade—evidence of breaches of the Balfour Assurances.
The evidence is very long and I wish to refer to it only briefly. There is evidence collected by the RSPCA. For example, to Belgium in 1970 calves were being exported under the minimum weight. Calves were being taken more than 100 kilometres for slaughter. Calves were being stunned with a claw hammer at an obscure Belgian slaughterhouse. In 1973, cattle were being taken from Scheveningen to Leeuwarden in Holland, a distance of well over 100 kilometres.
There is evidence from the News of the World in March of this year from Belgium of cattle being taken to Isegem, an approved slaughterhouse in Belgium, by our own authorities and subjected to inhumane treatment and slaughter of a kind which would be found intolerable by any British farmer who sent his stock for slaughter. There are examples of cattle travelling far more than 100 kilometres. There are examples of cattle passing from Belgium into Holland. There are examples of cattle travelling from Zeebrugge to Antwerp, which is not an approved slaughterhouse. There are examples from Holland in 1973 of cattle going from Ostende to Arnhem, well over the 100 kilometres' limit, also involving transit from one country to another, both breaches of the Balfour Assurances.
Finally, there is evidence, which I do not have at my disposal, from the Council of Justice for Animals and Humane Slaughter relating to calves earlier this year which the council has refused to release for the purpose of this debate but which I know to have been for some time in the possession of the Minister. No doubt the Minister will have something to say about this evidence when he replies.
For several months now there has been pressure for an independent inquiry into this trade not only from animal welfare organisations but also from the National Farmers Union of England and Wales. The Government have now given way to this pressure by agreeing finally to an independent inquiry. We must thank them for this.
However, we ought to ask the Minister a few questions on the form and scope of this inquiry. For example, will its hearings be in public? What are to be its terms of reference? Will it be widely drawn so as to include the whole of the


export trade in live animals, perhaps taking in the 18 points for consideration listed recently by the Animal Defence Society?
Will the inquiry be able to consider evidence already accumulated? This is an important point, because the trade on the Continent is now far less willing to talk about its activities to strange people wearing Union Jacks.
Will the inquiry be free to make any recommendations whatsoever, ranging from a total ban on the trade to much tighter restrictions—for example, ensuring that sales to the Continent are made on a dead weight and grade basis only, which would give British farmers a genuine interest in the conditions of transport and slaughter of their cattle on the Continent? Will the inquiry be able to recommend the licensing of individual consignments to individual slaughterhouses on the continent?
I turn now, because this is the crux of the debate, to the Government's amendment. Hon. Members on both sides of the House agree on the need for an independent inquiry. It is important to note that the Government's amendment relates only to our proposal for the suspension of licences pending the outcome of the inquiry.
The amendment implies that where there is no evidence of a breach of the Balfour Assurances the trade should continue. But this in turn implies other matters: first, that the Balfour Assurances are satisfactory, and, secondly, that they are being observed unless evidence is produced to the contrary.
First, the Balfour Assurances are out of date. Conditions both in this country and on the Continent have changed substantially since 1957.
Secondly, there is nothing in the Balfour Assurances to prevent the resale of cattle in a market within 100 kilometers of a port and subsequent slaughter anywhere on the Continent.
Thirdly, there is nothing in the Balfour Assurances about bringing them to the notice of Continental buyers and dealers. A large number of Continental hauliers and slaughterers questioned by independent investigators have been

unaware of the existence of the Balfour Assurances.
Fourthly, there is no incentive in the Balfour Assurances for foreign authorities to enforce them rigorously. So there has been, and can be, no effective control on the ground. Indeed, this was virtually admitted by the former Minister of Agriculture in the summer of last year in reply to the President of the British Veterinary Association.
The second point on the amendment is that it implies that the Balfour Assurances are generally being observed. First, it is a fact that transit movements from one country to another regularly take place. That is a breach of the Assurances.
Secondly, it is a fact that the 100 kilometers' limit for the journey on the Continent is regularly being exceeded, often to slaughterhouses where the conditions of slaughter and lairage would be illegal in this country.
Thirdly, there is the fact that the evidence on sheep last year and early this year showed breaches of the Balfour Assurances to such a considerable extent that no control was possible, so the Government were forced to suspend sheep export licences. The evidence on cattle shows the same pattern, and rightly so, for the same people are dealing with cattle as were dealing with sheep.
Fourthly, we in this country had official assurances from Continental Governments about the treatment of sheep. These assurances turned out to be valueless. Why should we have any more trust in official assurances about cattle?
In this connection I should like to quote an extract from a letter which the Minister of State wrote to one of his hon. Friends in November 1970 when the matter was first raised:
We understand from Dr. Latteur"—
who is the chief veterinary officer in the Belgian Ministry of Agriculture—
that animals imported into Belgium for immediate slaughter are sent to a specially approved national slaughterhouse and that their movements are controlled by the Belgian Veterinary Inspection Service.
The hon. Gentleman clearly stated that there was no possibility of re-export.
Dr. Latteur, in a letter dated 31st January 1973 to a French animal welfare


association—I have copies both in English and in French if hon Members want them—said:
A report of April 1972 submitted by these same people about a journey from Ostend to Marseilles admits that the sheep were in good condition on arrival at Marseilles.
That shows that Dr. Latteur, the head of the enforcement authorities in Belgium, which is one of the main points of entry for British cattle to the Continent, has no idea of the Balfour Assurances because the move from Ostend to Marseilles breaks two points of the Assurances: first, over 100 kilometres and, secondly, re-export from one country to another.
Furthermore, in the same letter he said:
No legal provisions, not even the Balfour Assurances, would enable us"—
the Belgian authorities—
to refuse transit permits".
There we have it in the words of the chief official of the Belgian Ministry of Agriculture responsible for trying to ensure that these Assurances are enforced.
The Balfour Assurances have been completely discredited. How often are they to be breached before the Ministry will act?
This leads me to a consideration of what the amendment means by the word "evidence". What kind of evidence would satisfy the Ministry so as to lead to a suspension of licences pending the outcome of the independent inquiry? Does it have to be direct evidence? This obviously cannot be obtained because it is impossible to produce at Whitehall Place a Belgian slaughterman from Putte with a clawhammer in one hand and a signed confession in the other. Animal welfare organisations have no power to compel continental witnesses to come to England. So it cannot be direct evidence.
Is it to be official evidence? How is this to be obtained from other Governments? Foreign Governments do not report breaches of the Balfour Assurances. We in this country have to prove them.
Perhaps the Ministry will accept unofficial evidence. But this puts the burden and expenses on animal welfare societies, which is quite wrong. Also, the Ministry has so far thrown a great deal of cold water on the unofficial evi-

dence that has been submitted to it. What assurance is there that the Minister will take such evidence any more seriously from now on? For example, he has suggested that some evidence may relate to Irish cattle. It does not. The evidence from the News of the World about Irish cattle going to Iseghem has been confirmed by both the manager and the sales manager of the slaughterhouse in question. Even if the evidence related merely to Irish cattle, should we not rightly deduce that if Irish cattle are being maltreated by hauliers and drovers and are not being slaughtered humanely, the same must be true of British cattle going on the same routes to the same destinations? Surely hauliers and slaughterers do not vary their treatment according to the nationality of the cattle that they are handling. Therefore, how can we take seriously a promise to consider evidence when such evidence has been available for some months with no action resulting?
The Ministry has been dragging its feet on this issue. For example, it has not accepted the offer by Miss Lawless of the News of the World to give evidence. It has not taken the matter as seriously as we have a right to expect.
If accepted, the amendment will create a muddled and confusing situation. We shall have two inquiries going on into the same subject at the same time. There will be an independent inquiry, which will obviously take some months to gather evidence and report, and there will be an ad hoc Ministry inquiry at the same time into suspected breaches of the Balfour Assurances.
This leads to two conclusions. The first is that the same evidence will obviously be submitted both to the independent inquiry and to the Ministry. That leads to the possibility that the Ministry could accept the evidence and the inquiry could reject it, or vice versa. Would that not lead to a ridiculous situation?
The second conclusion is that if the Ministry gives a verdict on the basis of the evidence submitted to it, it will be pre-judging, if not prejudicing, the findings of the independent inquiry. It is nonsense to have two inquiries on the same subject at the same time.
Basically, the amendment is a device for preventing interim action to suspend all these licences. It


merely states what is already Government policy; namely, to look at the evidence and take appropriate action. The evidence has been available for some months, but no action has been taken. We must have action now.
The amendment, in effect, seeks to delete the reference in the motion to the interim suspension of licences. If the amendment is passed, the trade will go on. That must be made clear. Surely it is much cleaner and more sensible, in view of the overwhelming weight of evidence, to make a break, to suspend licences as soon as practicable—we do not expect miracles—and to start the new inquiry and let it decide in what circumstances and with what safeguards the trade should be reopened, if at all. The burden of proof should now be on those who want the trade to continue and not, as at present, on those who want it stopped.
The real issue is the motion without the amendment. We must stop further animal suffering while waiting for the inquiry to report. The Opposition think that the British people and, we hope, the House of Commons will not be satisfied with less.

4.31 p.m.

The Minister of State for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Anthony Stodart): I beg to move, at the end of the Question to add:
to any country where there is evidence that the Balfour Assurances are not being kept".
Though there is much to say, I want to follow the example of the hon. Member for Walthamstow, West (Mr. Deakins) and make a short speech in order to allow as many hon. Members as possible to take part in this debate. I agree with the hon. Gentleman when he says that if the size of our mail bags is any evidence, many hon. Members wish to participate in the debate.
I should like to say two things first. I must declare an interest—or at least a possible one—because I sell about 800 store lambs every year and it may be that some ultimately go abroad live.
Secondly, I want to put something on record in reply to those—and there are some—who have said that all that farmers are interested in is the cash which the sale of their stock produces. He is a most unusual farmer who has

done a season's lambing, or had the joy and satisfaction of seeing animals bred on his farm grow up, who would countenance cruelty being done to them. I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman on this. I believe that all of us here are seeking to prevent or to reduce suffering among animals—not just my animals, not just animals from this country, but all animals—and I hope that that is something that we may all accept despite the differences that may divide us on how that can best be achieved.
A fortnight ago when I told the House that one of the difficulties confronting us about the photographs and the story in the News of the World was that there was considerable uncertainty about whether the cattle had come from this country at all—and I must tell the hon. Gentleman that what he said does not coincide with the information coming to us—I heard one of my hon. Friends exclaim, "They are all cattle" and that is very true.
Irish cattle go to European countries in large numbers, and the Balfour Assurances about resting, feeding and watering, no re-exporting and slaughtering humanely, do not apply to them. They can, and do, travel much longer distances from port to abattoir after having had, in many cases, a much longer sea crossing.
Because of breaches in the Balfour Assurances through sheep being reexported from one country to another, we stopped the export of all live sheep for slaughter as from 1st February, and since then none has left this country. There are those who argue that our carcase trade should thrive instead, but in fact it has shown virtually no change at all from the same period last year. But what has happened is, I suggest, not without significance.
Exports to Europe of live sheep from the Irish Republic during February to May rose from 734 last year, to just short of 12,000 this. And half the number of live animals which leave the United Kingdom for purposes other than breeding travel from Ulster to the Republic across a border which it has always proved impossible for any Government to close. Nor, I believe, is it possible to close that border, considering that, I am told, some farms literally have fields


lying on each side of the border, and also realising, without any disrespect. the temperament of the Irish people.
I think that people are alarmed about four particular aspects of the trade—the sea voyage, the road journey in the overseas country, the conditions at the abattoir and the possibility of animals being re-exported from the country to which they are sent.
First, there are regulations governing the conditions under which animals are transported to and from United Kingdom ports. Vessels used for the overseas transport of livestock are regularly inspected by the marine superintendent of my Department, and conditions are laid down about the number of animals which may be carried on each ship and the size of the pens. The regulations also cover proper ventilation, protection of the animals from the elements, and so on. And these same conditions are applied to the boats which take store animals from the Scottish islands to the mainland or from Northern Ireland to Great Britain.
The Balfour Assurances provide that the animals must be sent to an abattoir within 100 km. of the port of disembarkation, and this is a most stringent requirement. I remind the House that animals are often carried far further than that in this country, although I entirely accept that they are, as it were, under our control. But even so, if people are worried about the 100 km.—or 60 miles to put it in easier language—from the port at which animals land, I am bound to say that, despite all our regulations, the distances which animals travel from the sales in Scotland to the Midlands of England—and I say this with the considerable experience that I have had of animals from the North of Scotland arriving on the farm—arriving in very good order, makes 60 miles look pretty modest.
We come to the place upon which the main anxiety centres, and I believe rightly, and that is upon the abattoir itself. Without any reflection upon those who work in it, a slaughterhouse is not a pleasant place, no matter how high the level of humanity practised within it. I have visited many, always out of duty, never out of pleasure, for watching animals die is a horrible experience, no matter how clinically perfect the conditions may be. But I go 100 per cent. with every hon.

Member in saying that there is no excuse for anything other than the highest levels of humanity. This is what the Balfour Assurances, given by the various Governments concerned, are designed to secure.
Last in this list of points about which people are concerned, and on which the hon. Member touched, is the fear that animals which are sold for slaughter in a country specified on the export certificate are re-exported from that country to another. The hon. Member said that the Balfour Assurances are being broken virtually right, left and centre. There is no evidence, in the way that one would normally interpret the word, that this is so.
Since 1970, four complaints of specific infringements of the Balfour Assurances have been made to the Ministry. The hon. Member referred to them all. One in 1970 involved the transport of calves beyond the 60-mile limit. As a result of our representations, the Belgian Government banned the use of that slaughterhouse for British animals.
Last year reports were received from two or three animal welfare organisations that sheep exported to Belgium were being re-exported to France, and possibly even further afield, totally contrary to the Balfour Assurances. It was clear that there was a loophole in the arrangements. We therefore introduced stricter controls. In order to make it impossible for sheep to be sent on to France without being detected, a new documentary procedure was introduced on 1st November 1972 by which exporters were required to produce, on request, certificates from the Belgian slaughterhouses concerned, countersigned by a Belgian Government official, to show that these sheep were in fact slaughtered in an abattoir within 100 km of the port. None of the exporters concerned was able to comply fully with this requirement and indeed we continued to receive reports of sheep being sent on to France.
My right hon. Friend suspended all licences to export sheep for slaughter or as stores from 1st February 1973. This suspension still applies and it well illustrates the concern of the Government for the welfare of animals and their determination to see that the Balfour conditions are fully honoured. More recently there have been allegations accompanied by photographs of breaches


of the Assurances with respect to cattle. Anxiety has mounted, and, I think, understandably. The hon. Member said that Irish cattle were not involved. Our investigations are going on at the moment, as I told the House a fortnight ago they would. What I can tell the hon. Gentleman is that at least at one of the lairages in Ostend, Irish cattle and cattle from this country often arrive on the same day. The Irish cattle are separated out and they are then treated as being able to go to abattoirs further than 100 km because the Balfour Assurances do not apply. The British cattle are sorted out there and treated under the Balfour Assurances.
It seems to me that the divisions between us can be summed up like this. Is the best way of securing the conditions we want to stop our trade with other countries and let animals from elsewhere take the place of ours, or is there another way? I think there is. We should continue to clamp down on any breaches of the Assurances where we are satisfied that these have taken place.
At the same time the Government recognise that public anxiety is now such that the wisdom of an objective committee of inquiry could contribute to the consideration of these problems. We propose to appoint such a committee and to announce the terms of reference and the membership as soon as possible. We shall take most careful note of any views expressed by hon. Members during this debate on these two very important aspects of such an inquiry. I have already taken note of what the hon. Member for Walthamstow, West said. The amendment which I propose would still enable exports of live animals to be suspended where there is evidence that the Balfour Assurances are not being kept.
I hope that the House will agree that it is a fair and practical point to make that, if the committee of inquiry is to investigate this matter thoroughly, its members will want to visit the Continent to see for themselves the way in which our animals are treated, and the measures which are taken to enforce the Balfour Assurances. I have no doubt at all that the Governments concerned would be willing to offer every assistance to the committee in this investigation; but if, in

the meantime, we suspend the export of live animals, as the Opposition's motion demands, the committee will have reasons which are far less legitimate for asking the Government concerned for their cooperation, because United Kingdom animals would not be involved. Even if the Committee were to go in such circumstances they could not hope to satisfy themselves as to exactly how the Balfour Assurances were enforced since they do not apply to animals other than from the United Kingdom.
This is why I believe that our amendment is logical, reasonable and in accordance with our obligations under EEC legislation. I therefore ask the House to accept it.

4.47 p.m.

Mr. Phillip Whitehead: I welcome the opportunity that has come about as a result of the initiative taken by this side of the House to have at least a half-day debate on this very important subject. My only regret is that I believe that the House should have had this debate on the private Member's motion which was brought forward by an hon. Member opposite earlier in the year and which time after time was killed for the purposes of further debate by one or two other Conservative Members.
This debate takes place against a background of increasing cruelty to animals generally. That should not be forgotten.

Mr. John E. B. Hill: Surely the hon. Member is referring not to a private Member's motion, which would have allowed the sort of debate that we are now having, in which the full arguments may be deployed, but a motion for the Second Reading of a Bill which would have given the principle on the nod. Surely that would be most objectionable.

Mr. Whitehead: Time after time on a Friday I and other hon. Members listened to that Bill being killed. It could have gone into Committee, where all the arguments of principle could have been aired at leisure and at the disposal of the House. In parenthesis, I do not think that that principle of destroying Private Member's Bills is a very good one and I hope that the House will abandon it in the near future.
I was saying that I think that the difficulty that we face is that this subject is only part of the whole question of how animals are treated, not just by the farming community or exporters, but generally, as they fit into the needs of a vast industrialised society with a great demand for food and not too many scruples about how that food is acquired. Factory farming and all that goes with it has some aspects at least as deplorable as the matters that we are discussing today.
My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow, West (Mr. Deakins) made a succinct and admirable speech. This has been the first time that I have heard him speak from the Front Bench, and I congratulate him sincerely on the reply that he received from the Minister.
My hon. Friend said that in many ways the Balfour Assurances are themselves already to some degree discredited. They are discredited because of at least some occasional examples which have been reported consistently over the last few years, and certainly in 1970 and 1971, as well as this year, by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals to the Government of the day, concerning both the distances travelled and, in some cases, re-export.
These infringements occur just as much for cattle as for sheep. As the Government saw fit to alter the conditions for the export of sheep and to ban the live animal trade there, it does not seem to me that the Minister of State made a very convincing case against a similar stoppage in the case of cattle. The Minister of State said—and this is correct—that some animals are transported under our control in this country for very great distances, far further than the 100 kilometers, about 60 miles, which is permissible under the Balfour Assurances once the animals have gone to the Continent. It does not seem that that should give us great cause for satisfaction. That is no more than a debating point. It may well be that, as the road system has improved in this country, we ought to look at the internal conditions in which live animals are transported immediately before slaughter. We ought to be asserting ourselves in that area as well as being concerned about exporting animals to the Continent.
The National Farmers Union and the British Agricultural Export Council have bombarded hon. Members with a great many arguments why both the Private Member's Bill and the principles embodied in the motion today should not go forward. The NFU has been disingenuous in the extreme in the three arguments which it principally advances. The NFU argues, first, that if we were to take the action contemplated in the motion, this would be incompatible with the regulations of the EEC. The NFU argues, secondly—this was an argument on which we heard a great deal from the Minister—that it would increase the sufferings of animals elsewhere. Thirdly, the NFU says that it would cause a slump in fat-stock prices.
In addition, the NFU has submitted to us its survey of one trip from Boston, conducted by its investigators presumably as a counterbalance to the investigation of Miss Maureen Lawless. Let us take these things one after the other. I do not, as hon. Members will know, share the extreme hostility to the EEC of some of my hon. Friends. But we ought to be robust about this matter. We ought to be able to say to the EEC, in regard to its existing regulations, that if we find the conditions of this trade wanting—as we do—we shall stop it, and stop it forthwith.
We are dealing here with a matter which is entirely under our jurisdiction, with animals leaving our shores for export. We would have no difficulty whatsoever, whatever the NFU says in its piece of special pleading, in saying to the EEC that we proposed to ban the export of all live animals to the Continent forthwith. That is the first NFU argument.
The second of the arguments, which was also mentioned by the Minister, is that this will increase the sufferings of animals elsewhere, and that, somehow, the sum total of animal suffering will be increased in the balance if we do something to diminish and ameliorate the sufferings of animals being exported. That argument is the purest humbug. That was the kind of argument that was advanced against the cessation of the slave trade. Over one hundred and fifty years ago people said "If we take action unilaterally against the slave trade and stop this enormous cruelty to these


people, we shall drive trade elsewhere. It will be very bad for trade. Bristol will suffer."

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: And Liverpool.

Mr. Whitehead: Perhaps people said that Liverpool would suffer. Perhaps Liverpool did suffer initially. People said "Trade will go elsewhere. Others will lay down more ships and will carry more slaves and do rather better. In total there may well be more slaves carried and suffering at the end of the day than if we had not busied ourselves with this legislation." That argument is a load of rubbish.
The lead given by this country in that matter was followed—sometimes for good reasons and sometimes because the countries concerned were shamed into following it—by every European Power.
On the subject of Irish cattle and the mystical farmers who have one field south of the border and one in the Six Counties, we should be saying to ourselves that, instead of making these sophisticated points about the division of cattle at the point of entry on the Continent, we ought to be thinking of the kind of lead that we could give to the Republic of Ireland. If there is great suffering to cattle exported from the Republic of Ireland and Irish farmers are benefiting because of the increase in the export trade in live sheep from Ireland to the Continent, and if it is feared by the NFU and others that this pattern would be followed if we were to do the same thing in the case of cattle, surely we ought to be working to change the climate of opinion in the Irish Republic.
Many people in the Irish Republic are as shocked by the practices of the exporting industry there as we are by what has happened in some cases in this country. Therefore, this argument does not wash. We should, and can, give a lead. The total effect over time of giving such a lead would be to diminish the aggregate of animal suffering in the entire export business.
Thirdly, the NFU says that this will cause a slump in fatstock prices. My constituents would be pleased to hear that. They would be pleased to hear that the price of beef was falling and that at this

sensitive time of the year, when one can have beef on the Sunday table only by getting a building society or something to back it, they would be able to have it reduced to the price that the ordinary housewife can pay.
The arguments about the seasonal fluctuations in fatstock prices which have caused the farming industry in this country to rely upon the Continental buyer, this sensitive buyer who will not take our carcases but only live animals, cannot be justified.
I come finally to the NFU survey, the little voyage from Boston, carried out by two gentlemen on behalf of the NFU. One of them who was called in to do this was Mr. Thompson, the vice-chairman of the NFU's animal health centre. The investigation was concluded on 26th May 1973. Mr. Thompson said that he found no evidence of cruelty, and that at no point did he see handling of cattle, on this voyage or after, which could be described as cruel or vicious.
The House, however, ought to know exactly what it was that was found by the investigators who went on 13th March to Ostend and precisely what photographs were brought back as evidence, which have since been reproduced in the brochure sent to all hon. Members by the RSPCA. These were photographs of animals ankle-deep in blood with limbs broken when they were unloaded from the vehicles in which they had been brought from the point of entry, and animals being forced past carcases and sometimes still living animals suspended with their throats already cut. This is what Miss Lawless said.

Mr. Jerry Wiggin: When was the hon. Gentleman last in an abattoir?

Mr. Whitehead: If the hon. Gentleman is wanting to say by that remark that all conditions in abattoir are as horrific as these, he is wrong. He is certainly wrong in that concerning those in my constituency.

Mr. Wiggin: The hon. Gentleman is putting words into my mouth. I merely asked, if he was such an expert on the conditions in abattoirs, when he had last been in one.

Mr. Whitehead: I do not think that the intervention of the hon. Member for


Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) helps the debate. I have not been in this abattoir for the very good reason that I was not a member of the investigatory team, but I believe that it is evidence that should be laid before the House and that most hon. Members will wish to hear it.

Mr. Charles Loughlin: I can help my hon. Friend slightly because one of my responsibilities as an official of the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers was to look after work-people in abattoirs. There is no British abattoir that I know, certainly in the region that I covered, which was Birmingham and Mid-Wales, that would produce evidence of the kind of cruelty to animals to which my hon. Friend is referring.

Mr. Wiggin: I agree.

Mr. Whitehead: Therefore, I do not see why the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare wasted the time of the House with his intervention.
I shall simply read to the House what Miss Lawless found:
Some animals fell shot in the head. Others not so fortunate were shot in the ear, the cheek or the top of the neck.
The cattle behind them fell over the dead and injured bodies into the blood which was inches deep.
On injured beast somehow crawled away and wedged itself under some bars in the corner.
As shot animals were falling down or trying to stagger away, they were hauled up by a chain attached to one hind leg and were left to have their throats cut in full view of the other beasts.
One steer with a wound in its cheek was hanging up by one leg kicking and struggling and bellowing for minutes fully conscious before one of the men walked over and actually cut its throat.
I have lived in a farming community, next door to a farm and in a farming village. There is a slaughterhouse in the nearest town. I have never seen conditions of that kind in any British abattoir. I do not believe that they exist. If they exist, it is within our competence to do something about them.
As this evidence has been laid before us as to the conditions of this slaughterhouse on the Continent, I submit that it is material evidence when we are considering the very moderate call made by my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow,

West for a committee of inquiry. I would welcome it. I note the reservations that the Minister of State expressed. However, I hope in view of the evidence we have already heard, and in view of the specious nature of the arguments against a ban on the export of live animals, that one of the recommendations of the committee of inquiry will be a total, continuing and permanent ban on the export of live animals from this country.

5.2 p.m.

Sir Robin Turton: I shall make a very brief speech. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister of State—I declare the same interest as he, as a farmer and a livestock breeder—not to press the amendment. For one thing, it is meaningless. Secondly, it would be a great pity to divide the House, which is in general agreement, on an issue which I do not think is realistic.
The requirement of the amendment is that there should be evidence that the Balfour Assurances are not being observed. What is the evidence? There is abundant evidence. People can come forward who have been on the continent and seen in certain cases that the Balfour Assurances have not been observed. We can take the Putte case of 1970 or the more recent cases raised by the RSPCA.
Only a year ago when we were talking about sheep the Minister said, "We have no evidence. We are not going to change. We are not going to stop the exports." Then a small body of men went out to Belgium and had the most exciting experiences, rather like a James Bond story. They were arrested four times. They were chased from market to market. They returned with a film. Then, like Saul on the road to Damascus, the Minister was converted. Must we go through that every time before we get a change? This is the difficulty about the amendment.
The British Veterinary Association, which believes that this trade has got to be stopped, passed this resolution last June:
That unless assurances are received that proper policing of the Balfour Agreement is possible, this Association will be opposed to the export of live food animals for slaughter.
The Ministry, in reply to the association, could give no such assurances.
If that is so, what is the meaning of the amendment? We can bring any amount of evidence, but my right hon. Friend may not accept that evidence. Does the amendment mean "acceptable evidence" or just what it says—evidence? That is why I fear that the amendment is a subterfuge.
I make one appeal. I am convinced that, whatever view we may take on the larger question, the annual export of 20,000 calves for the veal trade is abominable and should be stopped at once. For one thing, the regulation says that the calves should be only 50 kilograms. They are often very much less, but that figure should be much higher.
I ask at this time, when there is a shortage of good beef store animals, for the Minister to suspend that calf trade, whatever view he takes on the larger matter. He has gone some way. I congratulate him on agreeing to an inquiry, for which we have pressed for a long time. For a long time the Government resisted the idea of an independent inquiry.
I congratulate the Government, too, on their conversion to the suspension of sheep exports, though I regretted my hon. Friend's saying, "Look at what happened. We stopped sheep exports. Exports from Ireland rose from 734 to 12,000." My hon. Friend did not mention that the number going from this country before the suspension in 1972 was 212,000 a year. If he had put that in the proper perspective, the point he made would not have been quite so telling as he intended it to be.
I regret that I could not possibly support this meaningless and illogical amendment and I hope that the motion will be passed.

5.7 p.m.

Mr. Michael Noble: I, too, shall make a very short speech, though rather in the contrary sense to that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Sir Robin Turton).
I have, as hon. Members know, three perhaps separate interests here. I am a member of the British Agricultural Export Council. The hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) complained that he had been bombarded with documents from the BAEC. We

sent one. I noticed that the hon. Gentleman said that the RSPCA had kindly circulated hon. Members with its views. There must be an obvious distinction.
The BAEC is interested solely in the export of sheep and cattle for breeding. We are obviously aware of what goes on in the fat cattle market, but this is not part of our concern. I am very worried that if we start a principle by which the export of all animals for slaughter is banned, it is impossibly difficult for anybody, even perhaps the Almighty, to be certain that the animals exported for breeding will be bred from.
In markets in Scotland large numbers of cross-Aberdeen Angus heifers are sold in the autumn. Probably 98 per cent. of them will finally go for slaughter. But there will always be some farmers who will say "I like the look of that beast. I will keep her and breed from her." It will clearly be exceedingly difficult for anybody to differentiate between which heifers are going for breeding purposes and which are going for slaughter and to operate such a control. It would quickly turn into nonsense.

Mr. F. A. Burden: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Noble: No. It is better if we each make our points quickly and simply.
The welfare of animals exported for breeding purposes is clearly vital to the work of my council and its members. We are selling abroad animals which are often worth hundreds and even thousands of pounds, and we, therefore, know something about the transportation of valuable livestock over infinitely greater distances than those we are discussing here. We care very much that this transportation is properly carried out, and we have to care because if the animals were in poor condition the customers would not accept them.
A few weeks ago we thought it would be wise to try to call together all those people who are in the fatstock export business to see whether the council and the NFU could arrive at a proper code of practice and get it accepted by the exporters. We ran up against a snag, however, because my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry told us that the list of people


dealing in the export of animals was confidential and that we could not have it. One of the ways in which we shall be able to reduce suffering in the export of animals is by a proper control of the people who deal in this trade, and I should like to see that approach carefully considered.

Mr. Heffer: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Noble: Perhaps I could make my speech in my own way.

Mr. Heffer: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain exactly what he means?

Mr. Noble: I mean that there are without any doubt certain people on the fringe of this business who are not as careful about the regulations as they should be. I wish to say no more than that. I should like the Government to be in a position to say to such people that if they misbehave their licences will be revoked and they will never handle this trade again. It is a simple point but it could he effective.
The Balfour Assurances have gone a considerable way—not the whole way by any means—towards improving conditions for the export of animals. One positive step that my right hon. Friend the Minister might consider is to say to our Friends in the Republic of Ireland that if they are determined to flout the rules and have nothing to do with the Balfour Assurances we might have to consider stopping the import of Irish sheep and cattle into Britain. There is no doubt that in stopping the trade of live sheep we have ensured that more sheep are exported from Ireland and most of the rest are exported from Bulgaria and other places in Eastern Europe, so that the total suffering has been considerably greater. My right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton said that my hon. Friend the Minister of State had not made his case fully. He did not because he probably did not have time.
My second interest is simply as the Member of Parliament for Argyll. I listened with a certain amount of concern about the Balfour Assurances and the 100-km or the 60-mile limit. With the exception of my farm, which is on the extreme edge of the county, I do not believe that there is a farmer in Argyll who could send any sheep to a slaughter-

house within 60 miles of his farm. In the case of the islands the sheep have to make a sea crossing which is much greater than the Channel crossing. But that represents an enormous improvement on conditions of 50 or 60 years ago when these animals had to walk and swim the journey.

Mr. Heffer: I should hope so.

Mr. Noble: So would I. Since the war I personally have sent at least 100,000 sheep to market, and the number that have died or suffered broken legs can be counted on the fingers of one hand. Enormous care is taken by all sheep transporters, and I put that on the record for the sake of people who believe that because sheep are put into lorries they are automatically maltreated.
The farming community takes enormous care and effort to look after the welfare of its sheep and it wants to be able to continue the trade which is not causing suffering to animals. Therefore, the inquiry must establish the facts. If the practice is cruel, the Government can say so and it can be stopped. If it is not, this trade, which has continued for a considerable time with few abuses, should be allowed to continue.

5.15 p.m.

Mr. Cyril Smith: I shall not delay the House for more than two or three minutes. I rise simply to clarify the position of the Liberal Party. I welcome the Opposition motion and congratulate them on their willingness to give time for discussion of it. My hon. Friends and I will certainly be in the Lobby with them at the appropriate hour. We shall vote against the Government amendment for reasons which have been outlined by the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Sir Robin Turton).
I was a little surprised at the Minister's statement that no evidence was forthcoming to indicate that certain requirements were not being met. I should have thought that there was abundant evidence to indicate ill-treatment of animals on their export to the Continent and that the evidence available to the Government—such evidence as is presented by the RSPCA, for example—was sufficient to warrant not merely a committee of inquiry but the suspension of the export of live animals until that inquiry has reached some conclusions.

5.17 p.m.

Mr. Charles Morrison: I, too, shall endeavour to be almost as brief as the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Cyril Smith), although that might be difficult.
As the Minister of State commented in opening his speech, it is common ground between everybody who has taken part in the debate that they would wish by some means to ensure a reduction in whatever amount of cruelty might now exist. The only difference of opinion might be about the means to be adopted to achieve that end. The hon. Member for Rochdale said that there was evidence of ill-treatment, and the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) has drawn attention to the evidence we have all received from the RSPCA. Other evidence has been brought to our attention.
The questions to be answered are whether the number of such cases of cruelty would justify a total ban on this export trade, and what effect that ban would have. It is difficult to understand how we shall reduce the totality of cruelty by banning the export trade in this country, because we know full well that many other countries do not adopt the same standards of inspection which we have here.
The point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Argyll (Mr. Noble) about transport of farm animals, particularly sheep, is a valid one—and particularly in his part of the world. I declare my interest as a farmer in his constituency who every year has to transport cattle from one of the islands to the mainland. Those cattle are travelling in a ship, not a very long journey but one that is often made in roughish weather, a journey which cannot be avoided, because I, like other rearers of cattle in the area, am not in a position to fatten them there and they have to be carried elsewhere. It would be a very brave man who tried to claim that animals in transit anywhere within the United Kingdom were never subject to some unwitting cruelty.
Therefore, we cannot pretend to put on a white sheet, although I am convinced that the overall standard is as high as is practically possible and that all farmers will always do their best to ensure that

that is so, as will the carriers. Unfortunately, unwitting occurrences of cruelty sometimes happen.
I am sure that the same is true in the slaughterhouses. The hon. Member for Derby, North referred to an article about slaughterhouses by a journalist and the vice-chairman of the NFU livestock committee, who went to Belgium to inquire into conditions there. The journalist, Mr. Peter Bell, commented:
The general standard of the abattoir was about level with the UK average.
It would be wrong to draw general conclusions from particular cases, but I do not accept that the example he saw was so very different from the average in Belgium.
The motion welcomes the suspension of the sheep exports. I have no doubt that the Government were right to ban that export trade, although we must learn from the ban the lesson in the figures of exports from Ireland and parts of Eastern Europe. The sheep experience emphasises the need to consider the effect of any ban on exports from this country.
Then the motion calls for an inquiry into the trade, but after it has been stopped. That is a rather pointless exercise. The Government amendment makes rather more sense of a broadly acceptable motion. It is too facile a solution to impose a total ban on exports forthwith. If we do so, in all likelihood we shall merely export the potential for cruelty from this country to others.

Mr. William Price: rose—

Mr. Morrison: I am drawing my speech to an end, and many other hon. Members wish to speak.
In all likelihood a total ban would increase the sum total of cruelty, because of the possibility of still allowing journeys for animals from other countries and because in many cases those animals will be subject to less oversight and inspection than our own.
If we ban exports we shall lose our power to influence other countries' standards. I disagree with the hon. Member for Derby, North about giving a lead. I do not believe that if we opt out we shall be able to give a lead to anyone.
I admire the RSPCA for highlighting the whole issue. It has helped to ensure


that the Ministry has been properly kept up to the mark and has been even more energetic in its endeavours to reduce the total amount of cruelty. But I am not prepared to indulge in the self-satisfaction of a total ban on exports when I know that that could mean still greater cruelty to exports from other countries. Therefore, I hope that the House will support the motion with the Government amendment as a sensible compromise between everyone's desire to cope with the problem and practical reality.

5.24 p.m.

Mr. F. A. Burden: I had hoped that the debate would not be on party lines. On such matters as we are dealing with the House is always at its best when party influences are not introduced.
I was greatly surprised when my hon. Friend the Minister said in his opening speech that if cattle do not go from this country there will be more cruelty, because they will go from other countries. Has he thought that if the Balfour and other regulations are so onerous other countries will not take cattle from here but will take them from the other countries anyway? His argument was ridiculous.
I turn to the question of cattle for breeding. The Ponies Act, the passage of which through this House I was partially instrumental in securing, raised the price of ponies so that it was uneconomical to buy them for slaughter abroad but people overseas would be willing to pay more for breeding and riding animals. I believe that the same thing could be done with regard to cattle.
There was obviously grave concern about the conditions in which cattle from this country were exported and slaughtered abroad for many years, otherwise the Balfour Assurances would never have come into force. The Balfour Assurances, which were regarded as the minimal conditions in 1957, were not mandatory. They were adopted by the countries concerned in the form of a regulation in full for pigs and cattle and sheep by Belgium, Holland, Italy and West Germany. France agreed only in the case of cattle. Therefore, at no time should British sheep or pigs be going to France. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister

will give an undertaking that they have never gone to France since the Balfour Assurances were introduced.
It is all too clear that many undertakings given by the countries concerned to abide by the Balfour Assurances were worthless. In many instances there has been a total disregard of the maximum distances laid down, and many animals are slaughtered in conditions that are abhorrent even to people with only the slightest concern for animal welfare.
The Government fully accepted that there was unacceptable cruelty to sheep when they suspended all licences for the export of those animals for slaughter. If for sheep, why not for cattle and pigs? Are we expected to believe that sheep have been specially singled out for cruelty, that that cruelty was sufficient to prompt the Government to suspend their export, but that in some peculiar way cattle and pigs are given greater consideration, and that there is, therefore, no reason to ban their export? I just do not believe that. There is evidence that that is not the case, and that cattle, too, are subjected to long journeys and are slaughered in conditions completely unacceptable to the ordinary people of this country.
The hon. Member for Walthamstow, West (Mr. Deakins) has referred to the News of the World report. Even if some right hon. and hon. Members, the NFU and others say that there was considerable licence on the part of the News of the World investigators and that they exaggerated, they surely cannot say that the report was a complete figment of the imagination. Those investigators would have had to have had a most extraordinary imagination and would have been completely corrupt reporters. If there was the slightest validity in what they reported, I am sure that there is ample evidence for bringing this trade to an end.
There is no doubt that there are a great many people in Britain who believe that there should be a complete ban on the export of live animals for slaughter. I am unable to compromise, and I believe that that should be so. I remind the House that no fewer than 165 hon. Members signed a motion which I tabled calling for a complete ban on this trade. In addition, 67 hon. Members signed a


motion tabled by the hon. Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton) and no fewer than 154 hon. Members signed a motion tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Mr. Sydney Chapman). The hon. Members who signed that motion agreed that there was grave concern about the way in which cattle were slaughtered on the Continent.
The Government can have no doubt that the trade is unacceptable to a considerable cross-section of hon. Members which goes right across party lines. They can have no doubt that it is unacceptable to the mass of the public. It is unacceptable not to fanatical animal lovers and vegetarians but to ordinary decent people who, while accepting that farm animals are inevitably exploited to satisfy human needs, will not tolerate their unnecessary suffering, especially if they think that that suffering is motivated by human greed.
The majority of people with any humane feelings are appalled at the evidence that animals bred and reared in Britain are sentenced to undergo the stress, strain and suffering imposed by long journeys prior to meeting what the facts show to be an end which is sometimes brought about in conditions of agonising brutality. Human suffering and death is the daily experience of the medical profession. The training and knowledge of medical men is such that they are neither sentimental nor squeamish in their approach to suffering and death. The same is just as true of the veterinary profession. Its views on animal suffering and slaughter must have equal authority.
The last sentence of a letter sent out on 10th July by the British Veterinary Association says:
We do hope that the debate will force a ban on the export of all live food animals.
That hope can be put forward only on the ground that the British Veterinary Association believes that there is unacceptable cruelty in the trade. There can be only one reason for pressing for the continuation of the trade—namely, that the export of live animals for slaughter brings economic benefit which outweighs all other considerations. I do not accept that argument in relation to human beings or to animals. If it were accepted, the slave trade would still be in evidence in

America, children would still be in the mills and on the assembly lines of British factories and we should not now be at variance with the Governments of Rhodesia and South Africa.
Even if there are great economic advantages if this trade is continued, its continuation will not benefit the British housewife, who, with the public at large, will not be convinced that it is sensible to export farm animals for slaughter from Britain when the total output of meat falls heavily short of our basic needs. The public see no sense in selling British meat abroad and having that meat denied to them or having to have it replaced by meat brought from abroad at the expense of foreign exchange. The economic arguments do not hold. Even if they did, I am sure that the case against the trade is so overwhelming that the majority of British people would wish it stopped.
The evidence which has been produced has been so good and so factual because it has been obtained by people who have worked anonymously. I welcome the fact that the Government have said that they will set up an independent inquiry. Of course, those who are in the trade will be forewarned and there will be a clearing up. There will be window-dressing. I hope that the inspectors will be asked and advised to meet and have discussions with those who have already looked into the trade. I hope that the inspectors will take their evidence. Enough evidence having been found to suspend the shipment of sheep, I believe that the House and the country will demand an undertaking to suspend the export of cattle.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): Before I call the hon. Member for Gloucesteshire, West (Mr. Loughlin), I should explain to the House that Mr. Speaker felt, owing to the special nature of the subject which we are discussing, that hon. Members should be heard for or against the motion irrespective of any party affiliation. The result is, as hon. Members can see for themselves, that it is necessary to call two from the Government side to one from the Opposition benches.

5.38 p.m.

Mr. Charles Loughlin: I shall not detain the House long because this is an issue on which there is


so much agreement across party lines that I am hoping that the House will be able to forget party affiliations. I know that we cannot expect Ministers to do so but we can expect back benchers, on issues of this kind, to do so.
I must express an interest because it might be argued that if there is a cessation of, the exporting of live animals members of my organisation might benefit in that the animals would be slaughtered in Britain and, therefore, they might enjoy a pecuniary advantage. I am an official of the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers, which represents the abattoir workers in this country.
This is a simple issue. Sufficient evidence has been adduced to show that the export of live animals has resulted in cruelty substantially higher than a large section of the community will tolerate. The hon. Member for Merton and Morden (Miss Fookes) tabled a Question about this matter, and a supplementary question which I asked resulted in me receiving letters from all over the country. Those letters expressed agreement with my call for an immediate ban on this trade.
The situation has been reached—it is no good the Government trying to hide the fact—when the number of people opposed to this trade is so high that it cannot possibly be ignored. I know that figures can he bandied about. It might well be argued, as had been attempted this afternoon, that if we stop exports of cattle in the same way as we stopped exports of sheep the exports would continue and we would transfer the cruelty from British animals to animals from other countries. But which countries are likely to export live animals to the exten that we are now exporting them?
I know that the difference cannot be quantified but I question very much—as did the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Sir Robin Turton) when he controverted the Minister's use of statistics about sheep exports—whether there is a transference of cruelty. The cruelty to animals which we have seen as a result of evidence that has been submitted to us all is absolutely intolerable. I hope that every hon. Member who takes my point of view will accept that this is not a major issue which will bring down the Government.
If the Government were defeated over such an issue there would be no political significance in it. This is an issue on which back benchers can come together and say "Enough is enough; we are not tolerating it any longer. The Minister must act and stop this trade in animals, because it is the type of cruelty that we ought not to tolerate."

5.41 p.m.

Mr. Rafton Pounder: May I at the outset declare that I am involved with an animal welfare organisation: namely, the Ulster Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals—no relation whatever, other than in name, to the organisation with which my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden) is involved. In common with other animal welfare organisations, the USPCA deplores the export of live animals for slaughter.
Some years ago I was fortunate enough to obtain the leave of this House on two occasions under the Ten-Minute Bill procedure to introduce a Bill aimed at preventing the export of animals for vivisectional research abroad. The argument I sought to deploy on that occasion is exactly the same as the argument which is relevant today: namely, that it is wrong for animals bred in this country to be sold to places where the travelling, lairage, feeding and the conditions of slaughter are different from standards appertaining in this country.
Regrettably, so often discussions on animal welfare matters are overlaid, indeed debased, by sloppy sentimentality, in consequence of which good arguments are not infrequently lost in a welter of emotion. With great respect to the documentation that some hon. Members have sought to advance in this debate, I must point out that I have been badly scarred in the past through placing reliance on photographic evidence allegedly purporting to be valid only to be told subsequently that it was 20 years out of date. I am not making that charge with regard to the document mentioned by the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead). I do ask people to be careful about attaching credence to photographic material espousing animal welfare causes.

Mr. John Golding: Will the hon. Gentleman say


whether he doubts the written statement that these photographs were taken on the dates mentioned by the RSPCA?

Mr. Pounder: I was careful not to make any point against the RSPCA documents which I have seen. I accept its validity, coming from such an authoritative and responsible organisation. The point I am trying to make is that sometimes photographic material is used to support a case which is not altogether reliable.
There is obviously the humanitarian argument, and we are all aware of the grisly incidents which have occurred from time to time in the export of live animals for slaughter abroad. In that context I commend wholeheartedly the action of the Government in banning the export of sheep in consequence of some distasteful experiences suffered by consignments of sheep destined for slaughter abroad. Although the Government are, rightly, firm in insisting that the only countries to which cattle can be exported are those which observe the Balfour Assurances, there is inevitably the question of ascertaining that the importer does not re-export those animals to countries which are not signatories to the assurances. With the best will in the world, it is virtually impossible to develop an adequate policing system which will ensure that no animals get through the net. This is a matter of considerable concern for me.
I am also an Ulsterman. The repeated references in the debate to the cross-border traffic with the Irish Republic have not made my enjoyment—if that is the right word—of this debate any greater. I utterly deplore some of the appalling instances which have occurred, particularly with the exportation of sheep from the Irish Republic to the Middle East. There is a considerable volume of cross-border traffic. The fact that it has gone on for a long time does not make it any more palatable to me. I realise that there is no point in asking the Government to take steps to curtail this cross-border traffic because everyone conversant with the border knows that it would be virtually impossible to stop it. If the Irish Government have not been able to stop terrorists moving across the border there is small hope of their being able to stop the traffic in cattle.
I would not for a moment object to some form of pressure being applied to the Southern Irish authorities to dissuade them from their habit of exporting live cattle to countries to which this country would not for a moment be prepared to send its animals. I seem to recall that some years ago, when there was a great scandal, rightly so, about the exportation of old horses from Eire, it was the weight of public opinion, on this side of the water as well as on the Irish side, that managed to terminate that unattractive trade.
There is another problem. Apart from the humanitarian aspect there is the economic argument, and it is fair that in such a debate as this we should pay proper attention to it. In the main, agricultural areas are areas of low employment opportunities. It is interesting to discover the economic potential of the establishment of slaughterhouses in agricultural regions.
We in Northern Ireland have been doing this and have opened six or seven in the last year or so. Not only does this avoid the weight loss and all the other things that happen as a result of the transportation of cattle, but we also create ancillary industries based on hides and on bones used for making fertiliser and so on. There is a valid economic argument here.
I realise that often—it is no use hiding this point—a number of slaughterhouses, indeed most in the United Kingdom, do not fulfil international requirements. This apparently is due to the fact that at stages of the slaughtering process the carcases and the offal cannot automatically and easily be identified. That, coupled with the double veterinary inspection system required for the international markets, means that many of our slaughterhouses do not fulfil the requirements of the export trade.

Mr. Burden: But 41 do.

Mr. Pounder: I would have thought that the amount of money needed to bring our large abattoirs up to that standard would be an investment well worth making. That would considerably assist in the economic argument of the dead meat trade. I very much look forward to the day when there will be no such thing as the export of live animals for slaughter abroad.
The meat processing industry in this country should be able to carry out all the tasks required of it. I hope that I have made my case perfectly clear. I have strong feelings on humanitarian and economic grounds on this subject, but I believe that the Government's amendment is an honest endeavour to reach the decision we all want. For that reason I am prepared to support the Government tonight.

5.50 p.m.

Sir Clive Bossom: I must declare that I do not own a farm, I have no stock, and I have no connections with auctioneers, but I am President of the Anglo-Belgian Union, which seeks to promote better understanding between the two countries. However, the Belgian Government have no influence on me, nor am I financed by Belgian butchers. I make these points because I have been accused on all these counts in the last six months.
I have an interest in the welfare of not only British animals but any animals. I have always argued in Herefordshire that in time the carcase trade was the right and proper method of exporting animals to the Continent. In the past five months I have argued that a Private Member's Bill is not the appropriate vehicle with which to impose a blanket ban on the export of live animals to Europe, for I am absolutely convinced that, instead of reducing cruelty, such a move would increase it. My right hon. Friend the Member for Argyll (Mr. Noble) made the point that if there was a ban the trade would automatically find other outlets. As has been pointed out, the trade would switch to Ireland and buyers in Europe would go to Bulgaria, Romania, Czechslovakia and other Eastern countries. This happened when licences for the export of heavy weight sheep were rightly suspended on 1st February, and it would happen again with cattle.
It is a poor argument to say that if we banned the export of live animals it would be a shining example which other countries would automatically follow. Human nature being what it is, I do not, sadly, believe that that would be the case. We would be the losers all round and other countries would not be shamed into following our example.
Some welfare organisations and Sunday newspapers have run a colourful campaign in the last few months. In some cases there have been exaggerated reports. It is easy to paint a picture of beastly foreigners manhandling poor British animals, and this impression has been given. I do not deny that there may have been cases of cruelty, but the cruelty angle can be, and has been, overstressed.
What I find fascinating is that I receive dozens of letters about cruelty to animals and not a single letter about cruelty to children, which also exists. One or two of the highly emotional reports, by reporters of both sexes, have been written by people with no experience of cattle transportation or slaughter methods, in this country. As the Minister has said, it is never a pleasure to watch animals die. Any slaughtering is a grisly affair, especially in the eyes of those, like the reporters, who have not previously seen it. I think, therefore, that some of their reports are biased.
The hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) mentioned the reports in April by Mr. David Parker, chairman of the NFU livestock committee, and Mr. Peter Bell, of the British Farmer and Stockbreeder. He gave the impression that the reports were suspect and biased, but to be fair, at least with their background knowledge and experience, the authors were able to judge between the procedure adopted by Belgian slaughterhouses and that adopted by slaughterhouses in this country. I have found that in Belgium the standards of meat inspection are as high as, or even higher than, in this country.
It seems that animal welfare organisations have double standards. They complain about animals being bled on the Continent without first being stunned, yet they are prepared to accept lamb from New Zealand, where sheep are not pre-stunned before slaughter.
The economic factor has also been mentioned. It is clearly the feeling of the House that this is not the most important factor involved. But this trade is worth about £20 million a year. The relatively small volume of exported cattle provides farmers in areas such as Herefordshire with additional incentives to continue to expand home production. A good proportion of the cattle we are exporting are old cows which it would be difficult to sell in the United Kingdom.
I welcome the proposed independent and unbiased inquiry which will enable us to ascertain what changes are needed in the European code. Perhaps further secondary legislation such as new regulations is required. I am disappointed that the Government did not propose an inquiry five months ago. I pressed them to set up such an inquiry. I am sorry that they have decided to institute an inquiry only now. While we are awaiting the findings of the inquiry, the Government should immediately introduce licences for exporters. They could rigidly control any unscrupulous exporter and revoke his licence for a breach of regulations. The Government should also get together with the Belgian Government and arrange for all our welfare requirements to be written into importers' licences. If there was any breach the Belgian Government would revoke the importer's licence.
I put forward those two positive proposals which could be further safeguards which we are awaiting the findings of the inquiry.

5.56 p.m.

Mr. John Golding: Some of the arguments advanced by the hon. Member for Leominster (Sir Clive Bossom) were unworthy of him. For him to say that he had received letters on this matter but not on cruelty to children was a red herring.
There is a great deal of concern among my constituents, and particularly among the young people, about this trade. It is a heathy sign that young people should be concerned about the question of cruelty. They are concerned because they believe that there is an economic motivation behind the cruelty. They think that it stems from the profit motive and not from psychological causes and that therefore something positive can be done about it. They are urging politicians to take action about this trade, which they deplore. Young people will not accept the economic argument. They will not accept cruelty done in their name even for the sake of £20 million. Nor will they accept the argument that because other people engage in cruel practices, so should we. They reject that standard.
I do not wish to use the argument that there is a trade for beef in this country. There is no necessity to take beef to the

Continent. However, if it is taken to the Continent, it will not lead to economic disaster in Manchester, for example, if the cattle are killed in this country. I am aware from questions asked and contributions made by my hon. Friends the Members for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Alfred Morris) and for Manchester, Openshaw (Mr. Charles R. Morris) that there is in Manchester a municipally-owned, modern and effective abattoir, opened in 1966, which because of under-use is losing money and must be paid for by the ratepayers. It is not reasonable that we should encourage the export of live cattle to the Continent from, say, Cheshire or North Staffordshre when they could be slaughtered under more humane conditions in Manchester.
The argument seems partly to concern the question of proof. I have looked at the RSPCA document which reproduced the photographs taken for the News of the World. I accept the evidence of those photographs. I admit that it is possible to produce photographs which are 20 years out of date, but I do not believe that that is the case with these photographs. I accept the report of the News of the World reporter and the authenticity of the photographs. The onus of proof rests on those who wish to continue this trade. If they could demonstrate that the photographs were 20 years old and that the News of the World report was false and exaggerated, I should have second thoughts about voting against the Government's amendment.
However, I believe the News of the World report to be true because there seems to be so much secondary evidence, particularly the evidence relating to sheep, to support it. If that evidence is true, there can be no doubt in the mind of any person who detests cruelty but that he should support the motion and oppose the amendment. That emerges clearly from representations made by the RSPCA to the effect that if it was given time any inquiry undertaken by the Government would be less effective. There can be no moral argument for the continuation of cruelty while the inquiry takes place.
On the basis of television reports, the News of the World report and the inquiries undertaken by the RSPCA, we have adequate evidence on which to act.


People will expect us to act. They expect us to say that in the name of the British people we will end the cruelty to animals and that we expect the Government to take action to ensure that it does not occur again.

6.4 p.m.

Mr. Marcus Kimball: My hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Sir Robin Turton) made great play of the letter which some of us have received from the British Veterinary Association. It should be placed on record that the association represents under 70 per cent. of the practising veterinarians. The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons has made no pronouncement on the matter. The association is the vets' trade union and does not represent the authoritative view of the whole profession.
I hope that the House will proceed with great caution in this matter. The debate is taking place at a time when a large number of grass-fed cattle are coming on to the market and the market is in a delicate situation.
The House does not appreciate that if a bullock weighing over 12 cwt. is taken to market there will be no buyer from the home market. The only people who will buy that bullock are representatives from the Kosher killing organisations or foreign buyers. Continental buyers are taking off the home market cattle which the home market is not prepared to pay for and slaughter. It does not make sense to say that if the cattle stayed here they would be available on the home market and the price of meat in this country would be reduced.
The House has a great responsibility in this matter. The real trouble lies with the Slaughterhouses Act 1958. Hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition benches did not vote against that Bill. We missed the opportunity then to ensure that England had a complete system of municipal slaughterhouses, as has Scotland. We also missed the opportunity to ensure overall meat inspection in every slaughterhouse because at that time the House felt that many butchers wished to continue slaughtering in their own back yards.
In England our standards of meat inspection are lower than those of five out of six of the continental countries to which we are trying to export. Continental countries insist that the offal continues with the carcase right through to the retail stage where it can be inspected a second time.
The hard commercial fact is that a substantially higher price is obtained for selling a large, overweight bullock or an old cow on the hoof because of the problem of meat inspection in this country and the better utilisation of offal and byproducts that is practised on the Continent. I hope—as I think does the whole House—that eventually the sheer economics of shipping, transport and handling will result in this trade being entirely on the hook. To achieve that, we must have in this country an improved system of EEC-approved slaughterhouses, our meat inspection must be brought up to continental standards and our slaughterhouses must have much better lairage facilities.
The House today has been concentrating mostly on cattle and sheep. We should not overlook the problem of the export of horses and ponies. The minimum valuation provisions do not give horses and ponies proper safeguards. Insufficient incentive is provided to ensure that full slaughtering facilities are set up in this country so that the horses and ponies do not have to go abroad.
The position today is that the trade must be allowed to go on under the proper safeguards. One of the greatest safeguards is the value of the commodity that is being handled. Most farmers want to get their cattle to the slaughterhouse in the best possible condition with the minimum of bruising and the minimum of stress. A fat beast is almost like a ripe peach and needs careful handling. I am certain that that is the view of the farming community.
Until slaughtering can be carried out entirely in this country, the House should accept the assurances of my hon. Friend the Minister of State that the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has adequate supervision at the port of export to ensure that all animals going abroad are suitable for export and capable of travelling. The NFU report suggests that the documentation of animals going


abroad is not adequate and that it should be in at least three languages to make certain that the people who handle the cattle know that they are cattle from England and are covered by the Balfour Assurances.
I am satisfied that the conditions in the ships in which cattle are exported—particularly from Boston docks in Lincolnshire—are better than those in many of our most modern dairy units. The conditions on the Belgian shipping line are excellent and are far better than those in ships operating from the Scottish islands to the mainland.
There is evidence that the methods employed by the RSPCA and other bodies in their investigations have not been conducive to improving the standard of animal welfare on the Continent. I hope the House will accept that our present safeguards are working and that the debate will reinforce everyone's intention to see that they do work—

Mr. Burden: Before my hon. Friend resumes his seat, will he declare whether he has an interest?

Mr. Kimball: I am sorry. I declare an interest as a producer of fat cattle and store sheep.

6.10 p.m.

Sir Ronald Russell: As chief sponsor of the Export of Animals (Control) Bill which is before the House I support the motion, although it goes further than the Bill in including "other animals" besides cattle, sheep and pigs. Like many of my colleagues, I have over a long period been urging a complete ban on the export of cattle, sheep and pigs. This view is supported by a great number of people from all over the country, as we all know from our mail. I have had thousands of letters, petitions and telephone calls in support of my Bill, and they are still coming. We should take note of this great expression of opinion throughout the country.
This cruelty has gone on for far too long, and it must be stopped pending the inquiry. I am glad that the Government have consented to set up the inquiry. The only way to prevent this cruelty is by stopping the traffic in live cattle, and I am glad that this has been done in the

case of live sheep. It is no good relying on the Balfour Assurances which cannot be enforced.
We must remember that some continentals—I will not say all—are not animal lovers. They do not care how animals which are exported from this country are treated. Their attitude is that, as they will die anyway, it does not matter if they suffer en route, even if they have to travel 1,000 miles across France. It is no good expecting people like that to honour the Balfour Assurances.
I once tabled a question on animal welfare in the Council of Europe. The answer I received from the chairman of the day in rather sarcastic tone was "This is an emotional issue". Of course it is an emotional issue, and rightly so. Animals feel emotion just as we do and we should, therefore, take all the trouble we can to see that they do not suffer.
My hon. Friend the Minister of State said that there had been four complaints of violation of the Balfour Assurances and suggested that that was not many. Those cases were taken at random by the organisations concerned and each resulted in cruelty being proved. That suggests that if 10 more cases had been taken cruelty would also have been found in those 10 cases.
I also pay tribute to the tremendous work done by the RSPCA, the ISPCA, the News of the World and other organisations in showing up the breaches of the Balfour Assurances which have occurred with sheep as well as with cattle. But for them this cruelty would not have come to light. I want to see trading in carcases instead of live animals, and I hope that the Government will always work towards that goal.
If the members of the committee of inquiry visit the Continent, I hope that they will go incognito. It is no good announcing that they will land at Ostend on a certain day. On that day there certainly would not be any cruelty to be found or any breaches of the regulations. Farmers and officials would not violate regulations under the noses of members of such a body.
I echo the plea made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Sir Robin Turton) not to press the amendment. The motion as it stands is acceptable to many Conservative


Members, and I urge the Government to accept it.

6.15 p.m.

Mr. Robert C. Brown: It is an appalling state of affairs that in 1973 the Opposition have had to table this motion. The hon. Member for Leominster (Sir Clive Bossom) referred to the tremendous correspondence which he had received from his constituents on this issue compared with his correspondence about cruelty to children. Everyone is moved by the appalling scale of cruelty to live animals, and I see nothing wrong in the great animal lobby—in fact, I am glad that it exists.
The one complaint I have about the Opposition motion is that it does not go far enough. The motion should have emphasised the need to bring all our slaughterhouses up to the necessary standards within the shortest possible time and should have insisted that this vile trade in the export of live animals should be brought to an end.
Before I became a Member of this House my work involved frequent visits to the slaughterhouses in Railway Street, Newcastle. I was a member of the city health committee and because of what I say in those slaughterhouses I pressed hard for the building of a new abattoir in Newcastle. There is now a first-class abattoir in the city. I am glad to know that no animals are now suffering as they suffered in the old slaughterhouses.
On more than one occasion when I visited slaughterhouses in Newcastle I have seen the tailboard of a wagon dropped to allow pigs and sheep to run down the ramp, and I have then seen slaughterhouse attendants carefully draw out the dead carcase of a pig and put it smartly into a scalding tank before anybody noticed it or had the opportunity to call in an RSPCA inspector. I often called the attention of an RSPCA inspector to the fact that there was a dead animal in the back of a wagon and also animals in an advanced state of suffocation. That happens in this country because of the transportation of live animals in extremely cramped conditions and because care has not been taken. But if that is what happens on short hauls in this country, one is appalled to think what happens on the extremely long

hauls of live animals on the Continent. This was clearly brought out in the recent television documentary on this subject.
The Government's amendment completely exposes the hypocrisy of Government thinking on this topic. If there had not been such a big profit in the rearing of animals for sale, the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Kimball)—who has now left the Chamber—would probably have advocated the hunting of sheep, pigs and cattle. No matter what the hon. Member said about the British Veterinary Association representing under 70 per cent. of vets in this country, the fact is that the Ministry of Agriculture could give no satisfactory assurance to the BVA that the Balfour Assurances can be properly policed. This exposes the hypocrisy of the Government's Amendment.

6.20 p.m.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I wish to say straight away that I fully support the Government's amendment to the important motion which we now have before us. I am convinced that all those who are genuinely and constructively interested in the welfare of animals are prepared to wait for the outcome of the full and independent inquiry which is to be set up into the export of live animals for slaughter rather than risk throwing away all the agreements and arrangements which have been secured by the United Kingdom over the years in the treatment of livestock. I believe that the present safeguards would be put in jeopardy by any premature ban on the export of live animals for slaughter or by a temporary blanket ban on the issue of licences.
If the continental buyers cannot purchase animals on the hoof for slaughter from the United Kingdom, they will undoubtedly turn elsewhere for their requirements. They will turn to Eire or to Eastern Europe, and this will not be to the advantage internationally of the welfare of animals. Obviously, if they go to Eire and to Eastern Europe, this will result in much longer journeys for the animals about which we are all concerned, and which we wish to see much more humanely treated. They would then be taking animals from countries which have no agreements concerning


the health, welfare and treatment of animals. Far from there being any advantage to the livestock, hasty and ill-considered bans would only remove the protection which animals now exported from the United Kingdom possess, and as a nation we would be powerless to influence the treatment of animals in the world at large.
My initial reaction when representations were first made to me by my constituents—and I have had many hundreds of representations from people genuinely concerned about animals—was to urge the Government to ban the export of live animals for immediate slaughter abroad. I pressed this upon the Government not only because I was deeply concerned, and I still am deeply concerned, about the treatment of animals and livestock—if we slaughter them in our own abattoirs we can ensure maximum standards and minimum suffering—but also because I believe that the United Kingdom would benefit from the allied trades in hide, hoof and offal.
I am sure that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will confirm the fervour and passion of the representations I made to the Ministry on this subject. I did not hesitate to append my name to the early-day motion on this subject promoted by the hon. Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton). However, every issue has two sides to it and, because I felt so strongly about this subject, I decided to contact those involved in the sale of livestock for slaughter abroad. I contacted some of my local farmers, and I have a constituency which has a very important beef industry. I contacted the local branch of the National Farmers' Union and a firm of auctioneers which runs a livestock market in Congleton in my constituency.
The farmers made it clear that they are as concerned about the treatment of animals as any animal welfare organisation or as any Member of this House. Animals are part of farmers' lives and farmers will not readily sell their animals to a buyer with a reputation for ill-treatment and cruelty. The NFU position is abundantly clear. It is deeply concerned about the treatment of livestock in transit and humane slaughter methods. The NFU has requested—and I am delighted that the Government have

agreed to this—the setting up of an independent inquiry into all the facts. The NFU does not believe that fair and objective decisions can be reached on the basis of emotive statements or sensational Press reports.
I can speak first hand about the treatment of cattle in Congleton market from which weekly livestock exports to the Continent run into many thousands of pounds. The conditions in that market and the treatment of animals there are excellent. I wish to make the point that a majority of the trade that goes to Europe on the hoof is in heavy cows and bulls which are not bought by the English butchers. Therefore, this trade is not taking supplies off the United Kingdom market. The auctioneers advise me that livestock is a very valuable commodity at today's prices, and the British housewife will no doubt vouch for this.
Any stress, strain, cruelty or ill-treatment caused to an animal will result in loss of weight and, because of the consequent loss in weight, loss in value. It is to the advantage of the buyer in Europe to ensure that his stock is not subjected to any harsh treatment.
There are niggers in any woodpile, and niggers in the woodpile even in the United Kingdom. If the proposed inquiry shows that animal welfare standards need to be raised to the benefit of all livestock I believe that the best, most effective and constructive proposition lies in internationally-agreed arrangements and not in hasty emotive and unilateral action by this country.
I am making arrangements with an auctioneering firm in my constituency to accompany a consignment of livestock from the cattle market in Congleton by cattle truck and boat to the abattoir in Amsterdam to see for myself the conditions which the animals will experience. I hope that as many right hon. and hon. Members as possible who have agricultural interests and farming communities in their constituencies will make similar arrangements. If this is done, a much more considered judgment can be made on this important issue.

6.27 p.m.

Mrs. Sally Oppenheim: There is grave concern among many hon. Members on the subject that we are debating. Equally and among the


people of this country there is acute and widespread anxiety and even anguish. Much as I support the principle of the Opposition motion, much as I acknowledge that many hon. Members opposite feel as deeply and as sincerely as I and many of my hon. Friends, I cannot help feeling that it would be a great mistake if this debate degenerated into a political affair.
In fact, there is not much to choose between successive Governments, Labour and Conservative, on this issue. I can claim that the present Government are ahead by a nose because, while the Labour Government did nothing in their six years, in three years we have managed to impose a temporary ban on the export of sheep. Credit is due to the Government for that action.
I do not intend to qualify my support for the Opposition motion because I find myself unable to do other than support it. Try as I will, I am unable to accept the Government amendment because I cannot believe that the Government have the way or the means of collecting evidence of infringements of the Balfour Assurances before thousands of animals have suffered. This is a most important aspect to consider.
It is often sneeringly said by foreigners that we in this country care more for our animals than for our children. This misconception is based on a misunderstanding by foreigners who are unable to comprehend that we have sufficient capacity to care deeply for the welfare of children as well as that of our animals. That being the case, it is almost impossible to over-emphasise the disgust, horror and repugnance felt by the people of this country at the scandalous way in which animals exported live for slaughter have been treated in transit and following their arrival at foreign ports. I do not intend to rehearse all the horrifying examples that are available to the House—these are only too well known to the country—save to say that, if only one of those reports were true in the smallest respect, we should immediately ban the export of animals for slaughter.
Assurances have been given time and time again, and time and time again those promises have been broken. Equally familiar and almost as unacceptable are the arguments and excuses

put forward by successive Governments in the past 10 years for doing nothing about the situation. Although the Government have placed a temporary ban on the export of live sheep which is admirable and for which my right hon. and hon. Friends deserve great credit, I have no confidence that assurances in the future will be honoured by people who have already made it abundantly clear by their past records that they look upon cattle as a mere commodity rather than as a form of life.
My hon. Friend the Member for Oxford (Mr. Woodhouse) raised this matter in an Adjournment debate on 8th March. He spoke of the conflicting views he had received from Ministers in the Ministry of Agriculture and the Department of Trade and Industry. He said:
one Department has the power but not the will to deal with the matter, and the other Department has the will but not the power.
If that is the case, the sooner the two Departments get together and show a little will power, which is long overdue, the better.
I intend now to refer to a matter which I am amazed no one so far has mentioned in this debate. In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford in that Adjournment debate, most of the argument of my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary was based on the interpretation of her Department of Article 34 of the Treaty of Rome, which prohibits any quantitative restrictions on exports between member countries of the Community, and Article 36, which is a qualifying article allowing these restrictions on the grounds of public policy, morality and the need to protect the health and welfare of animals. If ever there was any justification for invoking Article 36, I beg the House to agree that we have it here.
In that same Adjournment debate my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary said:
a complete ban on the export of live animals would be a quantitative restriction that we could not expect to justify under Article 36.
Clearly there are two important points of interpretation: does this quantitative restriction specify a certain number or a certain quantity? If not, does it refer to the scale of exports? Those are the two points which my hon. Friend the


Member for Oxford made. Furthermore, do Articles 34 and 36 anywhere refer to the fact that exports must be live? Are we not playing with words?
If Article 34 refers to the scale of exports, why does it not say so? If it refers to the quantity of exports, there is no specific quantity mentioned, and in theory we could ban the export of all but two live animals. The word "live" is not contained in either of the articles. The view put forward by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, though not in these words, is that this is a matter of definition and there are clearly established precedents in this country that two different categories of exports exist—the export of live animals and the export of carcase animals—and neither in theory can be reduced.
I hope the House will agree that there is something of an interpretative jungle to be cleared in this matter. I hope, too, that my right hon. Friend the Minister will accept that there are two issues. One refers to our position with regard to the Treaty of Rome, which must be clarified, and the other to morality, humanity and conscience. The former could be done by means of a test case before the European Court, and that could be precipitated by immediately suspending the export of live animals for slaughter.
I turn to the latter issue of humanity, conscience and morality. The strongest case for banning the export of live animals for slaughter was put by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary in the Adjournment debate when she said in respect of animals exported for fattening:
It would be unrealistic to expect any Government to keep track of exported animals throughout their lives, and to apply special conditions t0 them."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th March 1973; Vol. 852, c. 728–36.]
This is the whole point. Of course it is unrealistic. Of course it is impossible to keep track of live animals once they reach a foreign port, whether they are exported for fattening or for slaughter. We have no control over the situation whether or not promises have been made under the Balfour Assurances.
A further aspect which has been criticised is the journey itself. Examples have been given of terrified, hungry and thirsty animals herded together in intolerable

conditions despite inspection at British ports and despite the fact that the boats probably are of modern standards. In many cases their journeys have been intolerably long. With all due respect to my hon. Friend the Minister of State, who showed great sensitivity in his opening speech, it is no parallel to speak of animals travelling from the Orkneys to Aberdeen, because they are landing at a United Kingdom port where we still have some control over the situation.
With regard to the loophole of getting aver the border to Ireland, as my hon. Friend will be aware there are two exceptions to the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1970. The exceptions are made in respect of two categories, those being pedigree animals and animals exported from Northern Ireland to Eire. Therefore, it would be easy to replace this statutory instrument with another one imposing a restriction.
I have farmers in my constituency, although there are only 22 of them. For that reason, however, I am aware of the views of the National Farmers' Union. Much as I sympathise with the farming community in the difficulties and uncertainties that it faces, I believe that the ban on live animals would soon be replaced by a carcase trade plus a trade in offal of almost equal value both to farmers and to our exports.
I have neglected to declare my interest in that my husband and I are both tenant farmers. However, whether it would be for or against our financial interests, I could be never other than a supporter of a motion of this kind. I am supported in my attitude by my husband and children whose financial interests are involved.
We tell our children of the dreadful cruelties perpetrated against human beings in our earlier history and more recently in Nazi Germany. Then we boast somewhat optimistically about how all this has been changed by progress and civilisation. But how are our children's children to judge us when they read of the degree of cruelty to animals that we were prepared to tolerate and by our own inaction to condone?
I feel deeply that this debate is not only one involving the consciences of individual hon. Members. It is one which involves the conscience of the nation.


As my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr. Normanton) said in the European Parliament,
In future years we shall be judged not only by our expanded wealth and technological achivements but also by the moral standards that we set in relation to all forms of life.
I submit that by continuing this trade we debase those standards and ignore the dictates of conscience.

6.40 p.m.

Mr. Ted Leadhitter: I shall be exceptionally brief in following the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mrs. Sally Oppenheim) who has made an extremely useful contribution to the debate.
The Government must address themselves to the national concern and certainly to the common sense of the Opposition motion. They have already accepted the suspension of licences regarding sheep. Therefore, the corollary is that they should accept an independent inquiry into the trade as a whole and, because of that, agree that the suspension of licences for the trade generally is a natural step.
We in this House do not need proof of cruelty to determine the situation. We must decide what is right. Is it right, in conditions which we believe cannot be satisfactory, to continue the practice of the export of animals for slaughter? The answer must be that it is not.
There is overwhelming evidence from people who have close contact with this trade that suggests that action is required now. The House of Commons has already learned that all Governments have fallen short in finding an answer to this problem. But the function of Parliament, which is paramount, always reaches a point where it seeks to provide the answer that the country wants. It seems that Parliament for once can urge upon the Government that that time has now been reached. I suggest that the Minister, from the example relating to sheep and the nature of the wording of the motion, should follow the natural course and indicate that the Government will take the initiative and bring this foul trade to an end.

6.42 p.m.

Mr. John E. B. Hill: I must declare an interest as a farmer who sells cattle, some of which may go to Europe. I must also declare that I have served on the Agricultural Com-

mittee at the Council of Europe and am presently serving on the Agricultural Committee at the European Parliament.
Animal welfare is being progressively discussed in Europe, as my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mrs. Sally Oppenheim) has just said.
People's ideas on cruelty vary strangely. For example, most people do not think that fishing is cruel. Indeed, there are no regulations in this country dealing with the welfare in transit of cold-blooded animals. Curiously, it is the lack of regulations to protect these animals which, as I understand it, prevents Britain ratifying the European Convention on the Protection of Animals in International Transport. This interests me, as my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden) is a keen fisherman. Therefore, as I said, views on these matters vary.
We are making steady progress in the European Parliament in getting more attention paid to the standards of animal welfare. I think that a ban would be utterly counter-productive. It will be said that the British have not got a monopoly in humane feeling, and it will make it much harder for us to take part in the discussions and to build upon what has already been achieved. Furthermore, it will rob us of influence to suggest cooperation with the independent inquiry so that it could reveal any malpractices which may exist. We have a responsive commission, and many member Governments and parliamentarians are keen to make progress in this sphere. Therefore, I beg the House to accept the amendment and not make it more difficult to improve standards in Europe.

6.45 p.m.

Mr. David Clark: We are coming to the end of what has been an important, serious and, at times, very moving debate. I think most hon. Members who have sat through the debate will agree that it has shown this House at its best. It has been a mixture of both passion and reason. It started with a very fine and compelling speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Waltham-stow, West (Mr. Deakins), and most hon. Members who have taken part have followed his high standard.
The subject of the motion has aroused intense emotion and interest throughout the country. The Minister of State


earlier acknowledged this. Many animal welfare organisations have shown great interest in this subject, and that interest has been shared by the general public. It is my firm belief that the overwhelming majority of British people are concerned about reported incidents of cruelty which have resulted from the export of live animals for slaughter.
The Opposition recognise that if the motion is passed we cannot expect immediate action. We could not expect the export of live animals for slaughter to cease tomorrow. However, we submit that within the expiry period of the present licensing system this could be achieved.
I have taken great pains to look at the evidence of those bodies which oppose the motion. I have looked at the evidence of the National Farmers' Union and of the Scottish National Farmers' Union because they have been extremely concerned about this trade. I realise that they have taken a great deal of trouble to finance inquiries to try to ascertain for themselves the exact position. We know only too well that farmers in this country are deeply concerned about the welfare of their animals. I think that hon. Members on both sides will agree and acknowledge that no single group in this country is more concerned about the welfare of animals than the farmers.
The NFU reported that it was satisfied from its investigations that the Balfour Assurances were being adhered to. However, the general public and many hon. Members still remain unconvinced by the NFU's argument and are disturbed that this trade is going on.
I do not want to reiterate what has been said today. However, I believe that there are many instances where the Balfour Assurances have been and are being broken. The RSPCA has reported that in eight weeks in 1972 it counted 132 breaches of the assurances.
Reference has been made to the evidence obtained by the News of the World, which in this matter has represented some of the best campaigning traditions of journalism. The information and photographs submitted by that newspaper are convincing. I think that Miss Lawless and the News of the World deserve a pat

on the back for the way they have tried to expose this trade.
I am not suggesting that every shipload of beasts receives the type of treatment about which we have heard. It is quite plain that there are many instances where the Balfour Assurances are observed. There are some fine slaughterhouses and honourable people connected with the trade. Nevertheless, there is a growing section of the trade which permits cruelty and hardship to animals.
I should think that all hon. Members have not only received letters from constituents about this trade but have sent sympathetic replies. Activity in this House has been intense. We have had a Private Member's Bill presented and three early-day motions signed by many hon. Members on both sides of the House. One of those motions, headed by the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden) which is in stiff and strong terms calling for the present export of live animals for slaughter to be replaced by a trade in carcase meat, has been signed by no fewer than 65 hon. Members on the Government side and 100 hon. Members on the Opposition side.
I hope that when we go into the Lobby tonight at least 63 of those who signed that motion will join us. Two hon. Members who signed the motion have said that they do not feel able to support us. I am sorry about that because this matter is not confined to one side of the House or the other. That has been made clear during the debate, and I am sorry that not all the 65 Conservative Members who signed that motion intend to support us tonight.
The motion has assured us of some success, I welcomed the Government's decision two or three months ago to take action with regard to sheep, and nearly every hon. Member who has spoken today has agreed with that. We welcome the Government's acceptance of the need to set up an independent inquiry. The time for that is ripe, and we are glad that the NFU and amenity and animal welfare bodies are to back us. That will be a great help, and we accept that what the Government are proposing to do is a step forward.
The difference between the two sides is not great. I hope that the Government will not see fit to press their amendment,


because it seems to me to be inconsistent and I do not think that it will work. It says that we would stop sending animals to any country if there was evidence that the Balfour Assurances were not being kept, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow, West said, there are insurmountable difficulties in the way of finding such evidence. My hon. Friend referred to the difficulties surrounding the inquiry. The point to bear in mind is that we are inquiring not only about whether the Balfour Assurances are being kept but also about whether lairage, abattoir, stunning and transport facilities between here and the Continent, and on the Continent, are satisfactory for our cattle.
Many of us have seen the evidence put forward by the British Veterinary Association. The right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Sir Robin Turton) quoted from it with clarity and thought. The association has stated categorically that it wants this trade to be stopped. What is important is that the association carefully considered the matter and reluctantly came to that decision.
In 1972 the association asked the Minister of Agriculture for an assurance that the Balfour Assurances would be kept, and in all honesty the Minister replied that he could not give it. To be more specific, the Minister of State said in answer to a Question:
Once animals are disembarked in another country, our regulations cease to apply and a check on their welfare is then a matter for the importing country."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 18th December, 1970; Vol. 808, c. 454.]
That makes it clear that we in this country have no legal right to try to ensure that the Balfour Assurances are kept.
To add credence to that view, there is the statement by Dr. Lattour that
No legal provisions, not even the Balfour Assurances would enable us to refuse transit permits.
It is therefore clear—I think that Ministers accept this—that we have no say in how the Balfour Assurances work on the Continent.
The Balfour Assurances cannot work and it seems to me, therefore, that the amendment cannot work either. I hope that the Government will not press the amendment to a Division but instead will see fit to withdraw it. We have already

achieved some success from the motion, partly as a result of the pressure that has been building up through early-day motions, Questions and letters to the Minister, and partly because the motion is supported by hon. Members on both sides of the House.
This is one of those rare occasions when hon. Members, speaking with the overwhelming support of their constituents, can turn to the Government and tell them that they are not omniscient, that they do not know everything, that the people want an investigation and that, while that is going on, they want the trade stopped. This is not a party political issue, and I believe that hon. Members on both sides of the House will, if necessary, support us in the Lobby.

6.56 p.m.

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Joseph Godber): I should like to start by congratulating the hon. Member for Walthamstow, West (Mr. Deakins) on what I think was his first appearance at the Dispatch Box. We were all glad to listen to him. The speech of the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. David Clark), by its moderation and clarity, has helped and not hindered the debate.
What has emerged clearly from the debate, and what is recognised by every hon. Member, is the deep concern felt by the people of this country on any issue where cruelty or suffering is involved. Traditionally, British people are animal lovers, and I do not think that there is any hon. Member who does not share the genuine feelings of concern about unnecessary cruelty to animals.
I claim to be one of those who share that concern. I do so on my record in the House. Perhaps I may remind hon. Members that I was Parliamentary Secretary at the Ministry when the Balfour Assurances were brought in. I participated in bringing them in, and at that time I believed that they proved effective. I was also one of the main architects of the Slaughterhouses Act 1958, the prime purpose of which was to protect animals against cruelty in slaughter. I can claim to have had long experience of this matter, and I ask the House to bear that in mind.
The debate is not about motives but about methods. We all want to stamp our cruelty wherever we can, and there are two aspects that we have to consider. One is cruelty during transport, and that is largely what the Balfour Assurances are about. The other is cruelty at the point of slaughter and the way in which the animal is handled at that time.
It seems to me that the difference between the motion and the Government's addendum is that between action taken on the existing evidence, such as it is—it has been referred to many times today—and action that will be taken after a thorough investigation by an independent inquiry. The motion asks for an independent inquiry. The Government have accepted that, they are glad to do so, and I give the assurance that the inquiry will be set up quickly and will be asked to look fully into these matters.
Hon. Members are usually ready to judge an issue on the facts, but in this case we are asked to prejudge the issue if we are asked to establish a ban now. The Balfour Assurances have been in operation since 1957. For the greater part of the time since then they have provided a valuable safeguard against unnecessary cruelty in transport. It is only during the last two or three years that criticism has arisen and any claim has been made that they are being evaded. So far as they exist, if they are being carried through, cruelty in transport is being kept to the absolute minimum, and, as my hon. Friend the Minister of State reminded the House earlier today, animals in this country are transported over much longer distances than the minimum laid down.
The criticism is not against the Balfour Assurances themselves but arises because of allegations of failure to observe them. These allegations were proved to be right in the case of sheep, and the Government acted at once as soon as we were satisfied that those allegations were right. No allegation has been made about pigs and they have not been mentioned during the debate, but they are covered by the assurances, just as cattle are.
As for cattle, there have been these allegations, none of which up to this time has been proved. It is not unreasonable to ask the House to agree that action

such as is proposed should be withheld until there is evidence against a particular country.
The basis of the arguments today has been the News of the World articles and the RSPCA report. At least half of the cases concerned have been traced to cattle of Irish origin, on which no action in this House could have any possible effect. As for the others, the investigation is still proceeding, but no proof has yet emerged of any breach of the Balfour Assurances involved in those allegations. I suggest that there is some anticipation, to put it no higher, of the correctness of those reports. Hon. Members should weigh that matter in their minds.
There must be no mistake: merely to ban exports from Britain would not necessarily reduce the animal suffering in the world or in Europe, as has been said today. My hon. Friend the Minister of State gave figures of the growth in exports of live sheep from the Republic of Ireland to the Continent. It is true that my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Sir Robin Turton) took him up on his figures, but he was not, of course, giving figures for a whole year—only for four months.
As for the sheep, there is fairly conclusive evidence of substantial imports of live sheep from Eastern Europe, over, of course, much longer distances; therefore, the possibilities for cruelty could be greater. Thus, we took specific action where there was proof, but we see what could be the results of it. The implication, if the ban is extended to cattle and pigs, is, whether we like it or not, that it could lead to the transport of both cattle and pigs for longer distances, with possibly greater cruelty.
This leads me to the centre of my approach to the problem. I have said that I am as concerned about cruelty as any other hon. Member, but my approach is that cruelty to animals is not merely a national but an international matter. Thus, when my hon. Friends the Members for Wembley, South (Sir R. Russell) and Gillingham (Mr. Burden) first came to discuss this matter with me earlier this year, I told them that, while I was as concerned as they were about cruelty to animals, I could not support their Bill because I was seeking to deal with the problem in a different way.
I know that many hon. Members opposite and one or two on this side are opposed to our membership of the European Community. It will therefore be difficult for them to accept the argument that I now want to put, but it is nevertheless right to put it.
All the countries of the Community have legislation in one form or another concerned with cruelty to animals. There is also now the European Convention for the Protection of Animals during International Transport. That convention is expected to be ratified by other EEC countries in September; the United Kingdom has, of course, signed it and will be ready to ratify at that time.
But within the nine countries of the Community, there is an opportunity to improve standards of prevention of cruelty. I should like to see a harmonisation of standards both of transport and of slaughter throughout the Community in a form which would make any act of cruelty to animals an offence punishable by law. Even before I saw my hon. Friends' Bill, I had taken preliminary steps in Brussels to promote this approach. Since then, there has been discussion between United Kingdom officials and representatives of the Commission, and I have discussed my desire to raise standards throughout the Community with several of my ministerial colleagues, from whom I am getting substantial support.
I have announced my intention of raising the matter in the Council of Ministers in Brussels. I would want there to stimulate support to enable us to improve standards not only between Britain and the Continent but throughout the Community. This is my objective, and to the extent that we can make progress with it the opportunity to make a major impact, in avoiding cruelty to farm animals is very real.
We all want to get rid of cruelty to animals but I want to spread our endeavours wider than just this country and wider than the debate has gone today. Hon. Members on both sides, I think, would support that objective, and I ask them, therefore, to study the matter from that point of view. If we pass the motion in its present form, the implication is clear enough—that we do not trust these other countries to abide by

the Balfour Assurances and that we believe their standards of slaughter to be lower than ours. This is not the way, I suggest, to help me to create the climate of co-operation that I want to achieve with my colleagues on the Continent.

Mr. Christopher Woodhouse: What difference would it make if the Government's amendment were agreed? Can my right hon. Friend name any country to which exports would continue to be allowed under the Government amendment?

Mr. Godber: Exports would be able to continue to those countries to which they are going at present—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—until such time as proof that there was cruelty were brought and caused us to ban them, as we did with regard to sheep. What I am saying is that one should wait until there is clear and irrefutable evidence before we take that decision. This is the only fair way in which to decide any issue. In this House, above all places, I should have thought that that would be self-evident to all hon. Members.
The way in which to make progress is through activity in the Community in the way that I have described. If at the same time we have the committee of inquiry, which would go forward at a time when conditions were the same as they are now, and which would have the best opportunity to succeed as a committee, that would reinforce the Government's activities and would help us to alleviate cruelty over a much wider range than many of the speeches today have been concerned with.
Where there is default and this can be proved, the Government have already shown their willingness to act. We acted at once over the sheep. We continue to be willing to do this, but if we attempt any additions without the necessary evidence, we shall be making more difficult the task that I have undertaken in Brussels. I undertake to set up the committee of inquiry as speedily as possible, and I believe that it can play an important part.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Argyll (Mr. Noble) and my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. John E. B. Hill) mentioned tightening up export licensing. The cause of trouble—certainly this was the case with


sheep—is that some licences have been issued to people who were careless at the very least and probably unscrupulous as well. I undertake that, if the amendment is accepted, I will ensure that there is a strict tightening up of the licensing so as to ensure that there can be no possible case of a licence being given to someone who will not act properly and we will immediately withdraw such a licence. That, I believe, is a very big assurance to give to the House. Taking it with my other comments, I think I am entitled to ask the House to consider the amendment. It does not seek to nullify the effect of

what the House wants. It seeks to develop it in a way which will help us all, which will help the European Community to come into line, I hope, and will ensure that we can all achieve the same high standard. This is what the people of this country want—not a narrow, nationalistic interpretation of getting rid of cruelty, but a much wider one. I therefore ask the House to support the amendment.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 264, Noes 285.

Division No. 199.]
AYES
[7.10 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Howe, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Dodds-Parker, Sir Douglas
Howell, David (Guildford)


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Hunt, John


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Dykes, Hugh
Iremonger, T. L.


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Eden, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)


Astor, John
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
James, David


Atkins, Humphrey
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)


Awdry, Daniel
Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Jessel, Toby


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Emery, Peter
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Jopling, Michael


Batsford, Brian
Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Kaberry, Sir Donald


Bell, Ronald
Fortescue, Tim
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Foster, Sir John
Kershaw, Anthony


Benyon, W.
Fowler, Norman
Kimball, Marcus


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Fox, Marcus
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)


Biggs-Davison, John
Fry, Peter
King, Tom (Bridgwater)


Blaker, Peter
Galbraith, Hn. T. G. D.
Kinsey, J. R.


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Gardner, Edward
Kirk, Peter


Boscawen, Hn. Robert
Gibson-Watt, David
Kitson, Timothy


Bossom, Sir Clive
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Knox, David


Braine, Sir Bernard
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Lamont, Norman


Bray, Ronald
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Lane, David


Brewis, John
Goodhart, Philip
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Gower, Raymond
Le Merchant, Spencer


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Gray, Hamish
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'nC'dfield)


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Green, Alan
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)


Bryan, Sir Paul
Grieve, Percy
Longden, Sir Gilbert


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N &amp; M)
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Loveridge, John


Buck, Antony
Grylls, Michael
Luce, R. N.


Bullus, Sir Eric
Gurden, Harold
McAdden, Sir Stephen


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
MacArthur, Ian


Campbell, Rt. Hn. G.(Moray &amp; Nairn)
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
McCrindle, R. A.


Carlisle, Mark
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Maclean. Sir Fitzroy


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
McNair-Wilson, Michael


Channon, Paul
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)


Chapman, Sydney
Haselhurst, Alan
Maddan, Martin


Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Hastings, Stephen
Madel, David


Chichester-Clark, R.
Havers, Sir Michael
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest


Churchill, W. S.
Hawkins, Paul
Mather, Carol


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Hay, John
Maude, Angus


Cockeram, Eric
Hayhoe, Barney
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald


Cooke, Robert
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Mawby, Ray


Cooper, A. E.
Hicks, Robert
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Cordle, John
Higgins, Terence L.
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Corfield, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick
Hiley, Joseph
Miscampbell, Norman


Cormack, Patrick
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
Mitchell, Lt.-Col. C. (Aberdeenshire, W)


Costain, A. P.
Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Critchley, Julian
Holland, Philip
Monks, Mrs. Connie


Crowder, F. P.
Holt, Miss Mary
Monro, Hector


Davies, Rt.Hn. John (Knutsford)
Hooson, Emlyn
Montgomery, Fergus


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Horden, Peter
More, Jasper


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid,Maj.-Gen. Jack
Hornby, Richard
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)


Dean. Paul
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.






Morrison, Charles
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey
Tebbit, Norman


Murton, Oscar
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)
Temple, John M.


Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Roberts Wyn (Conway)
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret


Neave, Airey
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Nicholls, Sir Harmer
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Rost, Peter
Tilney, John


Normanton, Tom
Royle, Anthony
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


Nott, John
St. John-Stevas, Norman
Trew, Peter


Onslow, Cranley
Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.
Tugendhat, Christopher


Osborn, John
Scott, Nicholas
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)
Scott-Hopkins, James
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)
Waddington, David


Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Shelton, William (Clapham)
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Peel, Sir John
Shersby, Michael
Walker, Rt. Hn Peter (Worcester)


Percival, Ian
Simeons, Charles
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Pike, Miss Mervyn
Sinclair, Sir George
Wall, Patrick


Pink, R. Bonner
Skeet, T. H. H.
Walters, Dennis


Pounder, Rafton
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)
Ward, Dame Irene


Price, David (Eastleigh)
Soref, Harold
Warren, Kenneth


Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.
Speed, Keith
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Proudfoot, Wilfred
Spence, John
Wiggin, Jerry


Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
Sproat, Iain
Wilkinson, John


Quennell, Miss J. M.
Stainton, Keith
Winterton, Nicholas


Raison, Timothy
Stanbrook, Ivor
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)
Woodnutt, Mark


Redmond, Robert
Stokes, John
Worsley, Marcus


Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Rees, Peter (Dover)
Tapsell, Peter
Younger, Hn. George


Rees-Davies, W. R.
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)



Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow, Cathcart)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
Mr. Bernard Weatherill and


Ridsdale, Julian
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)
Mr. Walter Clegg.




NOES


Abse, Leo
Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Galpern, Sir Myer


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Crawshaw, Richard
Gilbert, Dr. John


Allen, Scholefield
Cronin, John
Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.


Armstrong, Ernest
Crouch, David
Gorst, John


Ashley, Jack
Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)
Gourlay, Harry


Ashton, Joe
Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)
Grant, George (Morpeth)


Atkinson, Norman
Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Grant, John D. ([...], E.)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Davidson, Arthur
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)


Barnes, Michael
Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Hall, Sir John (Wycombe)


Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)
Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)


Baxter, William
Davies, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Hamling, William


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Deakins, Eric
Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Hardy, Peter


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Delargy, Hugh
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)


Bidwell, Sydney
Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith


Bishop, E. S.
Dempsey, James
Hattersley, Roy


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Doig, Peter
Hatton, F.


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Dormand, J. D.
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis


Body, Richard
Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Heffer, Eric S.


Booth, Albert
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Horam, John


Boothroyd, Miss B. (West Brom.)
Driberg, Tom
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Duffy, A. E. P.
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)


Bowden, Andrew
Dunn, James A.
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)


Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)
Dunnett, Jack
Huckfield, Leslie


Bradley, Tom
Eadie, Alex
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)


Broughton, Sir Alfred
Edelman, Maurice
Hughes, Mark (Durham)


Brown, Robert C.(N'c'tle-u-Tyne,W.)
Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Ellis, Tom
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
English, Michael
Hutchison, Michael Clark


Buchan, Norman
Evans, Fred
Irvine,Rt.Hn.SirArthur (EdgeHill)


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Ewing, Henry
Janner, Greville


Burden, F. A.
Faulds, Andrew
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Fell, Anthony
Jeger, Mrs. Lena


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)


Cant, R. B.
Fisher,Mrs.Doris(B'ham,Ladywood)
John, Brynmor


Carmichael, Neil
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)


Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)


Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Fookes, Miss Janet
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Foot, Michael
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Cohen, Stanley
Forrester, John
Jones,Rt.Hn.SirElwyn(W.Ham,S.)


Coleman, Donald
Fraser,Rt.Hn.Hugh(St'fford &amp; Stone)
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)


Concannon, J. D.
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Kaufman, Gerald


Conlan, Bernard
Freeson, Reginald
Kelley, Richard


Corbet, Mrs. Freda









Kerr, Russell
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)


Kinnock, Neil
Murray, Ronald King
Spearing, Nigel


Knight, Mrs. Jill
Oakes. Gordon
Spriggs, Leslie


Lambie. David
Ogden, Eric
Stallard, A. W.


Lamborn, Harry
O'Halloran, Michael
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)


Lamond, James
O'Malley, Brian
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)


Latham, Arthur
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Lawson, George
Oram, Bert
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Leadbitter, Ted
Orbach, Maurice
Stott, Roger (Westhoughton)


Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Orme, Stanley
Strang, Gavin


Leonard, Dick
Oswald, Thomas
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Lestor, Miss Joan
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Padley, Walter
Sutcliffe, John


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Paget, R. T.
Swain, Thomas


Lipton, Marcus
Palmer, Arthur
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Lomas, Kenneth
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Loughlin, Charles
Pardoe, John
Tinn, James


Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)
Tomney, Frank


Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Pavitt, Laurie
Tope, Graham


Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Torney, Tom


McBride, Neil
Pendry, Tom
Tuck, Raphael


McCartney, Hugh
Perry, Ernest G.
Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin


McElhone, Frank
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Urwin, T. W.


McGuire, Michael
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.
Varley, Eric G.


Machin, George
Prescott, John
Wainwright, Edwin


Mackenzie, Gregor
Price, William (Rugby)
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)


Maclennan, Robert
Probert, Arthur
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Radice, Giles
Wallace, George


McNamara, J. Kevin
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)
Watkins, David


Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)
Weitzman, David


Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Rhodes, Geoffrey
Wellbeloved, James


Marks, Kenneth
Richard, Ivor
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Marquand, David
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Marsden, F.
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Marshall, Dr. Edmund
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)
Whitehead, Philip


Marten, Neil
Roper, John
Whitlock, William


Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Rose, Paul B.
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Mayhew, Christopher
Rowlands, Ted
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Russell, Sir Ronald
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Mendelson, John
Sandelson, Neville
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Millan, Bruce
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Miller, Dr. M. S.
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Milne, Edward
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Moate, Roger
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)
Woof, Robert


Molloy, William
Sillars, James



Money, Ernie
Silverman, Julius
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Skinner, Dennis
Mr. James Hamilton and


Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Small, William
Mr. John Golding.


Morris. Charles R. (Openshaw)
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)



Moyle, Roland

Question accordingly negatived.

Main Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House shares the growing concern about the conditions under which animals for slaughter are exported, transported and slaughtered overseas; welcomes the recent Government decision to suspend the issuing of export licences for live sheep; and, mindful of animal welfare, calls upon Her Majesty's Government to establish an independent inquiry into this trade, and in the meantime to suspend the issuing of licences for the export of live animals for slaughter overseas.

Mr. Norman Buchan: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In view of the decision of the House, which I believe is also the decision of the people, may I now receive an assurance from the Government that they intend to implement this as rapidly as possible?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): Order. That is not a point of order for me.

Mr. Harold Wilson: Every precedent in the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker—if you want the precedents quoted, we will do so—enables a representative of the Opposition who is intimately concerned with a subject to put a question, and we are entitled to an answer from the Government Front Bench.

Mr. Godber: I would certainly not wish to shelter behind any ruling. I recognise your position in this matter, Mr. Deputy Speaker. All I wish to say to the House, if I may have permission to do so, is that, naturally, the Government accept the decision of the House. We shall have to consider is implications, and we will make a decision in due course.

Orders of the Day — POLICE (MANPOWER)

7.25 p.m.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): Order. It is not possible for the hon. Lady to speak against the background of noise. Will hon. Members please leave the Chamber quietly.

Mrs. Williams: I beg to move,
That this House notes with concern the continuing rise in crime; affirms that the police should have adequate manpower to perform their duties; and deplores Her Majesty's Government's failure to deal with serious under-manning in certain police forces, notably the Metropolitan Police.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I remind the House that Mr. Speaker has selected the Amendment in the name of the Prime Minister and his right hon. Friends—in line 2, leave out from duties ' to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
endorses Her Majesty's Government's decision to give a higher priority over the last three years to policies for the support of law and order; and in particular welcomes the success of these policies in bringing about a substantial increase in the strength of the police service and further welcomes the present indications of their success in combating crime".

Mrs. Williams: The House has set a very useful precedent in the last few minutes, one which, in my view, should apply to the motion we are now debating. I live in hopes that this will be so.
This debate concerns an issue at least as important as that which we have just debated; namely, the issue of police manpower and of law and order.
I begin by quoting a remark which was made in a somewhat wild flight of fancy by the present Lord Chancellor, then the Shadow Home Secretary and right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone when he said in Eastbourne on 23rd February 1970, in a speech which clearly had one eye on the forthcoming election campaign—
The permissive and lawless society is a byproduct of Socialism.
I make no comment on the permissiveness of society, but I am bound to say that society is rather more lawless today than it was in 1970. The right hon. and learned Gentleman went on to say:

There must be more police and if need be we must pay more for them.
His attitude was one, as so often in these matters, of over-simplification.
The truth is that no party has any simple answers to the problems of law and order. They are far more complex than any political slogan could possibly suggest. I therefore trust that in this debate hon. Members on both sides will consider seriously what steps can be taken to improve law and order, not least in those areas which are suffering from serious undermanning of the police force, and that there will be no attempt to put forward simple dogmatic solutions of that kind. As we all know, the figures of crime have steadily risen year by year since the war. In 1972 there were 1,335,000 indictable offences in England and Wales. In London alone there were, in addition, 355,445.
The most encouraging thing that anyone can say in the House tonight is that the rate of increase has slightly slowed, as indeed it has slowed slightly in several recent years. In England and Wales outside London, the increase was 1·2 per cent. In the Metropolitan district of London it was 4·1 per cent. That is encouraging, and we on this side readily accept it.
What is less encouraging is that within that overall figure certain types of crime are still growing with dangerous rapidity. In the provinces violence against the person, the type of crime that arouses most public concern, increased by no less than 12·5 per cent. last year. Robbery and robbery with assault, another type of serious crime, increased by the frightening figure of 21·55 per cent. outside London. Within London the increase for woundings and serious assaults was 7 per cent., for muggings 32 per cent., for robbery 15 per cent. Indeed, the only encouraging figure in serious crime in London is that for murder and attempted murder, which showed a decline of about 10 per cent. in 1972 against 1971.
Of course, we ask immediately: what steps can be taken to reduce the level of crime and, above all, of crime against the person involving violence? Anyone who has studied the matter seriously is bound to be impressed by the concentration of police strength and police quality on serious crime. It is, above all, here that the police exercise a growing


capacity in technological matters in which the level and quality of detection are constantly rising and in which the police show remarkable standards which are not always widely understood by the general public.
Of course, if we are to require the police to cope with this constant rise in crime, particularly violent crime, and if we expect them at the same time to deal with demonstrations, with individual acts of offence of one sort or another, and with the steadily rising flow of traffic it is our duty as a society to provide the best possible conditions, to provide adequate salaries and the sort of backing that they need to undertake this work. The overall position of the police in England and Wales is relatively encouraging as the Home Secretary will no doubt tell us. Since reorganisation small police forces have disapeared and, although at the time the reorganisation undoubtedly created a great deal of worry, there is little doubt but that the better promotion prospects for policemen have led to an encouraging improvement in recruitment to the reorganised provincial forces.
The total net strength of the provincial forces in England and Wales increased by 2,545 which was an impressive level of recruitment, but not the highest, which occurred in 1967, when 3,004 additional policemen were recruited. The better use of civilians to support the police has continued. There was almost a doubling between 1964 and 1970 of civilian assistants to the police, and there has been a further increase from the 15,135 of 1970 to the 17,057 of 1972. However, it would be wrong to pass over the position in the provincial forces without recognising that there are still areas which give cause for considerable concern. There is an overal deficiency of about 9 per cent., and in 17 out of the 47 provincial forces there is a deficiency of over 10 per cent.
Some of the more serious cases are as follows. The West Midlands has vacancies totalling 520 with a police force of 1,875—a deficiency of over a quarter. In Birmingham the deficiency is well over 15 per cent., and in West Yorkshire it is about 16 per cent., with 760 vacancies and a strength of 4,459. In some ways the worrying feature of the provincial

scene is that it is in the areas of heaviest industrial development, in the conurbations such as Birmingham and the West Midlands, that the position is the most serious.
It is fair to say that this position is unlikely by itself to improve, because the provincial forces, like the Metropolitan force, are moving into a period in which normal retirements will reach a peak. The increase expected in normal retirements over the next five years for men with 30 years' service will combine with the attempt to try to man up the undermanned police forces and also to establish a basic 40-hour week—something which is enjoyed in most industries of a less taxing nature. The Chief Inspector of Constabulary says in his current report that this will require
a substantial all-round recruiting effort.
But it is in the area which is peculiarly the responsibility of the Home Secretary that there is a situation of deepening crisis. London has many special policing requirements. More than a quarter of recorded crime occurs within the boundaries of the Metropolitan Police District. In addition, much of the serious crime—the highly organised crime involving such things as bank robberies—takes place in the capital. The police also have to cope to a much greater extent than police forces elsewhere with demonstrations. There were no fewer than 470 last year, the handling of which by the police has occasioned a considerable degree of praise in the international press, and in which the police are asked to exercise patience which I shall show is almost too much to ask of them in the conditions in which they now have to work.
London is also the centre for embassies, and in the last two years the protection duties that fall upon the Metropolitan Police have increased dramatically because of the attacks on embassies, because of the threats to them and because international terrorist movements see embassies as possible targets. The police in the Metropolitan area also have ceremonial functions and a particularly large flow of visitors. The Lord Chancellor in the speech to which I referred accused my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition of "fiddling while Rome burns". He was talking about the crime levels in London and about what he regarded as the irresponsibility of the then


Government in dealing with them. If London is Rome, it is certainly burning.
A glance into history shows that under all Governments the Metropolitan Police has been relatively neglected. In 1939 there were 47,000 policemen and policewomen in the provincial forces. In 1972 that had risen to 72,000—an increase of 51 per cent. In 1939 there were 19,000 constables and other officers in the Metropolitan Police. In 1972 there were 21,000—an increase of just over 10 per cent. This neglect of the Metropolitan Police has continued, and the current figures represent a most serious situation. That is why we have brought it to the attention of the House. Out of the authorised strength of 26,049 officers the Metropolitan Police has vacancies for 5,031, a deficiency of over 23 per cent. Between 1st April 1972 and 1st April 1973 the Metropolitan Police lost 263 men and gained 23 women, a net decline of 240.
Wastage rates have speeded up disturbingly in the last three years. Between April and July 1973, in addition to the net loss I have explained, no fewer than 165 officers left the Metropolitan Police. If this rate of loss were to continue it would be the equivalent of losing a complete division of Metropolitan Police officers by the end of this year.
Another indication of the size of the crisis is the transfers in and out of the Metropolitan and other police forces. En 1972 there were 52 transfers in from the provinces but there were 172 transfers out. The figure has rocketed disturbingly. In the six months to June the number of transfers out was no fewer than 152. For the period April 1972 to April 1973 there were 533 voluntary resignations by police officers in London—not for retirement but from their own choice. Out of that total no fewer than 365 had between two and ten years' service. The were experienced officers with a long period of service ahead of them, men the force could ill afford to lose. We have to ask why this situation has occurred. It is no comfort to an old lady who is being mugged in the streets of London to be told that she would be safe upon the streets of Bournemouth, Bediington or Bishop Auckland.
Why has the situation been allowed not only to reach that position but to deteriorate so disastrously in the past 12

months? The first reason is very simple. The London allowance is only £50. It has not been increased since 1966. That means that at a time when the cost of living has doubled in the seven years from 1966 to 1973 there has been no increase in the London allowance. There has been an under-manning allowance for the Metropolitan Police of £65, making £115 in all. Only the London allowance is pensionable, not the under-manning allowance.
The Government might argue that this was an impossible field in which to move because for a considerable period, understandably in the light of the difficulties of achieving national police rates, there was a sharp division of opinion among the organisations representative of the police between provincial forces and the London force about a London allowance. That is no longer so. At its most recent conference the Police Federation came out strongly for a massive increase in the London allowance. If a little later in the debate my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Alfred Morris), who follows these matters closely, catches the eye of the Chair, he will be able to say a great deal more about that and about the attitude of the Police Federation.
Incidentally, even if the police themselves had not changed their minds completely on the issue, the Home Secretary is not bound by the consultative status of the Police Council. I trust that in the light of the changed attitude of the police he will move rapidly to deal with this aspect of the crisis.

Mr. John Page: There is a differential in the housing allowance, which is up to £500 a year more in London compared with other places.

Mrs. Williams: The hon. Gentleman has pre-empted the next thing I was going to say. I was just about to turn to the housing allowance in London, which lies closely within the province of the Home Secretary. The housing allowance in London for a police constable is a maximum of £10 per week. It was last increased on 1st January 1971 by 35 per cent. for police constables, falling to as little as 16 per cent. for chief superintendents. Therefore, 35 per cent. is the maximum figure. But since 1st January 1971 the price of houses


in London—I have just checked this—has increased by 109·5 per cent. There have been two years in which the cost of housing has doubled in London, and there has been not a penny increase in the housing allowance to the London constable.
Even worse than that, the maximum that the Metropolitan Police Friendly Society can allow in mortgage for a house, on the basis of a police constable's starting salary, is £6,400. The average price of a two-bed-roomed London house is now £12,743, twice the amount of mortgage that will be allowed to a police constable. So desperately apart are those figures that only a chief superintendent with over 10 years' service would be allowed, on the basis of his present income, a mortgage equivalent to the average cost of a house in London. That is an appalling position for us to find ourselves in.
A good measure of the situation is the fact that mortgage demands on the society have dropped from 815 in 1971 to only 171 in the current year. Although admittedly I am taking a half year's figures, that shows that there is a steady decline in mortgage demands, because policemen can no longer afford to buy a house.
What does a situation in which recruitment is falling, in a force which is already nearly a quarter under strength, really mean? For the average policeman it means an incredible degree of work. I am not sure whether the House realises the strain being put upon policemen in the Metropolitan force. They work a 46-hour week. That is the basic expectation. That means that in every period of rest days three rest days are automatically cancelled every month. The police frequently lose some of the remaining rest days each month as well. Those rest days are then re-rostered, but many policemen feel that they are chasing an endlessly disappearing pot of gold over the horizon, because re-rostered rest days are very hard to come by.
The police in London are required to do unlimited overtime. They work on shifts. Some of them are working 59 and 60 hours a week—those are official figures—but there are individuals who work very much longer hours. When we say that, we say it of men who, over and

above the hours they normally work, may have a rest day cancelled, not like us, at perhaps a week's notice, but in some cases at 24 hours' or 12 hours' notice. That puts a strain on their family lives which has not surprisingly driven many men out of the force.
Even that degree of strain, of overtime, of demand upon men who may, for example, even after working 59 or 60 hours a week find that they have made an arrest and will be called into court the following morning, which may be their first rest day for four or five weeks, has not undermined the success of the police in dealing in London with major crime. There have been some encouraging developments recently, such as the decline in the number of bank robberies.
However, what the situation necessarily means is that the police must neglect a whole range of less significant crime, but crime which is still significant to the individual affected, in the interests of manning up detective services and the rest to deal with highly-organised crime. That emerges from the difference in clear-up rates, the bulk of it I fully accept in the less serious crime, of 49·9 per cent. for the provincial force and 30·3 per cent. for the Metropolitan force.
The Metropolitan force is now so overstrained that it cannot undertake the preventive work, the steady patrol of the beat, that is a necessary part of the effective and good policing of what the Home Secretary so much likes to call freedom under the law.
I believe that the solution now lies in the Home Secretary's hands. London is the area for which he is directly responsible. The solution lies in accepting what the Police Federation has said about the need for a massively increased London allowance. It lies in accepting a London housing allowance which begins to match the inflation of housing prices in London. It lies in recruiting to a level at which police officers in London will not be expected to work hours which no human being, let alone one in a job requiring patience, judgment and good temper, should be asked to do.
I do not accuse the Holm, Secretary, because he is not given to making wild statements, but I return to where I started. The Lord Chancellor said that the first responsibility to the country was to


increase the police forces and to pay for that increase if necessary. I acquit the Home Secretary of any charge of having failed to do that in most of the provincial areas, though the West Midlands needs looking at.
I conclude by giving the House some figures. I trust that the Government, which are so often described as the party of law and order, will take them very much to heart. In the 13 years of Conservative Government from 1951 to 1964 the increase in manpower of the Metropolitan Police was 2,409. In the six years of Labour Government from 1964 to 1970 the increase was 2,876. In other words, in those six years the increase was greater than in the previous 13 years. In the three years that the Conservative Government have been in office there has been an increase of only 151 in the net strength of the Metropolitan force. What an amazing record to put forward!

7.51 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Robert Carr): I beg to move to leave out from "duties" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
; endorses Her Majesty's Government's decision to give a higher priority over the last three years to policies for the support of law and order; and in particular welcomes the success of these policies in bringing about a substantial increase in the strength of the police service and further welcomes the present indications of their success in combating crime
In the course of my speech I shall give a number of facts to the House, some of which will be new, which will give encouragement and also the lie to the rather over-gloomy figures and prognostications of the hon. Member for Hitchin (Mrs. Shirley Williams) about the present crime situation. I shall be glad to report that there are at last signs of a distinct turn-round in the depressing trend of post-war years.
I welcome the debate. It is right and important that the House should unite in expressing its concern at the current volume of crime. It is right that we should do that and find time for it because in doing so we are expressing a concern which is felt by many people in London and throughout the country.
It is also right and important that both sides of the House should unite in recog-

nising the need for the police to have adequate manpower. I hope that we can underline as much as possible our unity on these matters. It is because of that hope that I particularly regret the second half of the Opposition's motion. It introduces party division and rancour on a subject and at a time when Parliament both could and should speak with a united and non-partisan voice.

Mr. Clinton Davis: Just like the Lord Chancellor.

Mr. Carr: A motion censuring the present Government on police recruitment comes singularly ill from a party which, when in Government a few years ago, deliberately and as a matter of policy restricted police recruitment at a most critical time. I shall remind the House of the last Government's policy by reading one or two passages from a circular sent out in January 1968 by the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), who was then Secretary of State for the Home Department in the Labour Government.
I draw the attention of the House to the part of the circular which said:
the total strength of the service"—
that is the police service"—
has now reached a point where it is not necessary for unrestrained recruitment to continue indefinitely. Moreover, the Government's policy of restraint in public expenditure makes it necessary to ask police authorities to reconsider the present recruitment levels of both police officers and civilians.
The circular said in paragraph 4:
The aim is that the aggregate strength of police officers throughout England and Wales in the period 1st January 1968 to 31st March 1969 should increase by not more than 1,200.
Later in paragraph 4 the circular said:
All forces should continue to attest cadets when they reach the qualifying age, but they must be accommodated within the foregoing arrangements.
Paragraph 6, which referred to civilians supporting the police, said:
In general, during 1968–69 there should be no increase of civilian employees over the number now in post.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: But what happened?

Mr. Carr: That deliberate restriction of police recruitment was made at the end of a year when crime had been rising at almost double the rate at which it


was rising last year. It was made at a time when police manpower was some 10.000 less than it is today. And the hon. Member for Hitchin had the effrontery to talk about deficiencies.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: rose—

Mr. Carr: Just let the hon. Lady wait a moment. It was her right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East who, when he was Secretary of State for the Home Department, denied a shortage of manpower. If the hon. Lady has forgotten, let her turn to HANSARD of 15th February 1968, when her right hon. Friend said:
I do not accept that the police force is 17,839 short of the numbers it requires."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th February, 1968; Vol. 758, c. 1556.]
That was the deficiency on the same basis of establishment to which the hon. Lady has referred. That deficiency, thank heavens, is much smaller today than it was then. It was the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East who made that denial.

Mrs. Williams: In that case, why was it that the year to which the right hon. Gentleman is referring—1968—was one of the best years for recruitment by the Metropolitan Police? The right hon. Gentleman did not mention that my right hon. Friend excluded all undermanned police forces from his ban and that 2,400 additional civilians were recruited between 1968 and 1969.

Mr. Carr: If those civilians were recruited, they were recruited in direct contravention of the circular and the policy issued by the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East. If they were recruited, that recruitment took place with no help and assistance from the Labour Government. Such recruitment would have been directly in contradiction to their instructions to local authorities.
As far as I know, I do not believe—my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State will confirm what I say, or if there are one or two exceptions he will tell the House—that there are any police forces today in England and Wales which are not stronger in numbers than they were when the Government took office three years ago. That includes, contrary

to what the hon. Member for Hitchin said, the Metropolitan Police.
The Labour Government deliberately restricted police recruitment—

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Will the right hon. Gentleman give the House the figures?

Mr. Carr: I have just given the chapter and verse. I will give the figures in a moment. The Conservative Government, from the moment they came to office, deliberately encouraged and expanded police recruitment. In 1968 and 1969, the last two complete years of Labour government after the deliberate restriction was imposed, police numbers in England and Wales increased by only 1,100. In 1971 and 1972, the first two complete years of the Conservative Government, police numbers in England and Wales increased not by 1,100 but by 5,900—more than five times as much. How can the Labour Party, which so deliberately and successfully cut down police recruitment, censure this Government which have so deliberately and successfully expanded police recruitment in the past three years?
I must remind the hon. Lady that she was Minister of State at the Home Office during part of that disastrous period. From the moment the Conservative Party came to power, we began to implement our decision to give much higher priority than the Labour Government had done to policies for the support of law and order and, above all, the support of the police. The hon. Lady quoted my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor in a speech he made when still a Member of this House. He said that we must have more police and, if necessary, we must pay for them. That is exactly what the Government have done.
In 1970 the police had an increase in pay of 16 per cent., well above what other people were getting at that time. It was an increase specially designed in size and mode of application by my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling), who was then Home Secretary, to encourage recruitment and reduce wastage. In 1971 there was an interim increase of 6½ per cent. Last October there was an increase, dating back to September 1972, of another 15 per cent. While I am not for a moment claiming that the increase in pay over these three years of Conservative Government have


been as much as the Police Federation and other representative organisations sincerely believed they were entitled to, it is true to say that over the past three years the pay of the police has been significantly improved relative to most other groups in the community.
That is an undeniable fact and it is one of the main reasons why the increase in the strength of the police in the first two years of the Conservative Government was over five times as great as the increase in the last two years of the Labour Government.

Mr. Neville Sandelson: Will the right hon. Gentleman at least concede that in the year ended 1972, far from there being an increase in the strength of the Metropolitan Police, there was a net decrease of about 60 men? That being so, and bearing in mind the special problems we face in the Metropolis, will he not also concede that special measures and increases in remuneration are required if we are to get anywhere near tackling the problem?

Mr. Carr: I will come to that point. The motion tabled by the Opposition is cast in general terms and refers at the end to the Metropolitan Police. I will come to that later. Important though London is, and I am a London Member, it has to be remembered that the whole country is also important. What we did with police pay was one tangible indication of the higher priority, as our amendment says, which the present Government have given to policies supporting law and order and the police in particular.
I want to mention two or three indications. First of all there is the question of probation officers. I am sure the House would agree that these are very important. When the Government came to power the maximum permitted number of probation officers in England and Wales was 3,500 and there were about 3,300 in post. As a result of what the Government have done, there are now 4,100 probation officers in post and the establishment ceiling has been raised to 5,000 for 1975 and to 5,350 for 1976. That is another sign of the higher priority which this Government give to law and order.
I come now to the prison building programme. In 1969–70, the last year of the

Labour Government, the prison building programme permitted the start of 80 new prison places. Last year and this year, the prison building programme of the Government has permitted the start of more than 2,000 new prison places—not 80, but more than 2,000. That is another indication of the higher priority given to the whole subject of law and order.
Consider the law itself. The Criminal Justice Act 1972, while not perfect, is generally admitted to represent a major forward movement in the criminal law in the interests of law and order. It increased the penalties for serious firearm offences up to and including life imprisonment for the most serious offences. It also introduced new concepts. It gave new powers to the courts to order "big time" criminals to pay compensation. It introduced new forms of non-custodial treatment for the courts to use, such as community work and day training. Earlier today at Question Time the hon. Lady was generous enough to pay tribute—this is an all-party matter, I am glad to say—to the initial signs of the success of those new forms of treatment.
In the law, too, we have given priority to the pursuit of policies of law and order. There is no doubt that the Government have implemented in a massive manner the commitment to give higher priorities to policies for the support of law and order. That is what we ask the House to endorse in the first part of our amendment.
Probably no other Government, Conservative or Labour, in the lifetime of most of us has given such high priority to tackling crime, supporting the police and developing policies for the protection of law and order. This policy is now producing results. We see this first in the increased strength of the police. The numbers of police in England and Wales rose by almost 6,000 in the first two complete years of this Government, five times more than in the last two years of the Labour Government.
In February the number of regular police officers in England and Wales topped the 100,000 mark for the first time in our history. It is not only the number of police officers which has risen. It is also the number of wardens and other civilian staff who support the police and


free them to do the real police work which only police officers can do. Since the last General Election the number of civilian support staff in England and Wales has risen by 7,700, another substantial strengthening of police capacity.
Look at the issue in financial terms. Expressed in that way, the higher priority which the Government have given to the police is shown by the fact that at constant prices expenditure on the police in 1973–74 is £76 million higher than it was in 1969–70. The total is now £484 million and represents an increase in real terms of about 20 per cent. since the last year of the Labour Government. The overall story of police strengths in the past two years has been one of expansion and increased effectiveness.
As the hon. Lady has pointed out, and as I have made clear in the House, the manpower position of the Metropolitan Police is something about which we should be and are concerned. We should still remember that the size of the force is a little bigger than it was three years ago and that the uniformed strength now has civilian support staff which is 3,200 more than it was three years ago. Therefore, if we take the small increase in the uniformed strength and the very big increase in the civilian support staff, I am glad to say that in manpower terms the Metropolitan Police, although far short of what I would like it to be, is significantly stronger today than it was when the Government took office.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Did the right hon. Gentleman say that there had been a 3,000 increase in civilian support staff? In answer to a Question from me on 14th June he gave the figure of 9,000 for 1970 and 10,000 for 1972.

Mr. Carr: I will ask my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State to give the exact figures when he replies. I assure the hon. Gentleman and the House that in preparing my notes I consulted detailed figures.

Mr. Lewis: I do not doubt what the right hon. Gentleman says, but if it is true it is an amazing increase in one year, and is something to which I am paying tribute.

Mr. Carr: The answer to which the hon. Gentleman has referred will be looked into before this debate is wound up and my hon. and learned Friend will deal with the point. This is something we should note.
I do not say this in order to be complacent. Had it not been for the unfortunate nature of the second half of the Opposition motion, I should not have made the comparisons as forcefully as I have done. What I am concerned about, and what the House should be concerned about, is the continuing need, because although the force is stronger than it was three years ago it is not strong enough, and what we must worry about at present is the trend in the uniformed strength. The problem is one of wastage rather than of recruitment.
In 1972 the Metropolitan Police recruited 1,183 men, which was good, but the force lost 1,232, which was bad. Therefore, there was a net loss last year of 49, but about 150 of those who left were not lost to the police service as a whole but were transferred to police forces elsewhere.
Unfortunately, this wastage has continued seriously into the current year. With the return of full employment, recruitment, although substantial this year, is not as good as last year, and thus the net numbers in the Metropolitan Police have declined by about 300 in the first half of this year. I assure the House that I am not only well aware of the situation but I am also taking it very seriously.

Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies: Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that someone will be given the task of asking those men who are leaving the force for their reasons for doing so? I intend to deal later with some of their reasons, but there are reasons, concerning particularly criminal investigation and detectives, which involve not money but other causes.

Mr. Carr: I was about to explain what we propose to do about this. First, the Commissioner is conducting a close inquiry into the causes of wastage in all branches and in all ranks and is stepping up efforts to improve the quality of man management throughout the force. Those of us who have to grapple with problems


of wastage of manpower realise that the whole subject of man management is an important factor in the matter of wastage.
Secondly, a new and major recruitment campaign has just begun, the scale of which is shown by the fact that supporting advertising will cost £100,000, in addition to the central national recruitment campaign, for which advertising costs are £600,000. Thirdly, there has been a great effort over the last year or two to influence young people, and those who advise them in the choice of career, to think about the police service more than they have done in the past. This is of longer-term effect and is important for the future. We are having success in building up the size of the cadet entry. In September 1972 the cadet intake was 100 higher, in round figures, than it was in September 1971. The cadet corps is now nearly 700 strong. The percentage increase last year was pretty substantial, and that augurs well for the future.
However, I realise that central to the problem is the question of pay. Since the Government came to power, the police have had above average increases. I must make it clear that this year there can be no exception in stage 2 to the Government's counter-inflation policy. I understand that negotiations in the Police Council are advancing on that basis.
Looking to the future, I much welcome the new policy of the Police Federation to accept in principle a differential rate for the Metropolitan Police. I cannot help saying in passing how much I wish it had adopted this policy a year or two earlier, but I make no complaint about that; I simply welcome the fact that it has done it this year. It will he a matter for the Police Council, but, speaking for myself, when it is possible within the terms of the Government's counter-inflation policy, I hope that a differential rate for the Metropolitan police can be negotiated.
The hon. Lady the Member for Hitchin mentioned the important matter of rent allowances. The House has been informed that they are under review, and I cannot say more at present. However, I must repeat that in all these matters everything must conform to the Government's counter-inflation policy.

Mr. Thomas Cox: The right hon. Gentleman has said

that the rent allowances are under review. Will he give an assurance that the way in which the rent allowances are assessed by district valuers will also be reviewed? If he speaks to officers in London he will find that a source of great complaint is that comparable properties are assessed at a much lower rate in one borough than they are in an adjoining borough.

Mr. Carr: I know that it is a matter of concern, but as it is under review I hope that the House will excuse me for not being drawn into discussing it. I know that the question of pay is important, but the other factors of employment policy and working conditions are of great importance in recruitment and wastage. I am sure that the whole House will wish to praise the Commissioner for the new energy, initiatives and ideas which he is bringing to the Metropolitan Police—and that is no discredit to those who have gone before him. The House will wish me to pay tribute to what he and his force at all levels have done and the success that they have achieved in the fight against crime in the London area, despite the natural difficulties and the manpower shortage.
I am glad to say—this is the first news I can give and it perhaps shows that the hon. Lady the Member for Hitchin was unduly gloomy, but I do not blame her for that because she was speaking on the basis of the latest information available to her—that mugging in the London metropolitan area has decreased from 802 cases in the last six months of 1972 to 629 cases in the first six months of this year. Therefore, we are not simply saying to the old lady in London, "It will be safer if you go to Bournemouth". She was marginally safer in the first six months of this year than she was in the last six months of last year.
The picture is more encouraging in respect of the more serious crimes. For example, the number of bank robberies has fallen from seven a month in the first six months of last year to only two a month in the first six months of this year. The number of burglaries has declined. Therefore, the Metropolitan Police has a record of success for which the whole House will wish to congratulate and thank them.
That leads me to the present indications of success in combating crime over the country as a whole and to thank and congratulate the police in all force areas for what they are achieving on our behalf. After years of depressing figures, there are at last significant signs of improvement. Today I was able to announce that the number of murders was down by 14 per cent. in 1972 compared with 1971–149 against 173. I shall be publishing in the very near future the official crime figures for the first quarter of 1973. They are not yet finalised, but the provisional official figures make me believe that there will be not a small increase but a decline compared with the same period for 1972.
In 1972 the overall crime figures for the first quarter were up by 5·3 per cent. compared with the first quarter of 1971. I believe that when the figures are finalised in the near future the first quarter of 1973 will show a decrease in the overall volume of crime of between 4 and 5 per cent. compared with the same quarter in 1972. That is a real sign of hope, although no one can be sure that it will continue.

Mr. Edward Taylor: Can my right hon. Friend say a little more about the corrected figure of 149 murders? In particular, can he say why the figure has come down to 149 from the figure of murder offences known to the police at 31st December 1972, which, at 257, was the highest figure in recorded history in England and Wales? Also, can my right hon. Friend give a corrected figure for manslaughter, including the Section 2 manslaughter charges which have been reduced from murder charges?

Mr. Carr: My hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State may be able to go into that matter in more detail. The answer to the second part of my hon. Friend's question is, I think, "Not yet", certainly "Not now." I do not have those figures with me.
The reason for the decline in the figures is that when many cases recorded as murder or suspected murder reach the courts the charge is reduced for reasons which I cannot yet analyse. Although there is a substantial reduction every year between the recorded number and the final

number, it seems to be much larger this year than usual. However, I assure my hon. Friend that the number of murders in 1972, at 149, is comparable with 173 the year before.

Mr. Taylor: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the reduction this year is 108 compared with 70 last year and 50 the year before?

Mr. Carr: I think it is of that order. If my hon. Friend is wrong, I am sure that the Minister of State will correct him. The figure which I have given is the latest corrected figure and is comparable with 173 for the year before.
We must not be complacent, but at last, for the first time for many years, there is some sign that the crime tide may be ebbing rather than flowing. I am glad to tell the House that the official figures reflect the reports which have been coming in to the Home Office from chief constables since the latter part of last year. In 1972 22 police forces reported a decrease in crime compared with 1971. In the first three months of 1973 32 police forces reported a decrease in crime compared with the first quarter of last year. In the first four months of this year 36 police forces reported a decrease in crime compared with the first four months of last year.
Here is hope, but we must not—and I promise the House that we shall not—be complacent. Violence continues to be a serious and, I am sorry to say, still increasing problem. I hope and believe that if we can once turn the tide of crime as a whole from a flow into an ebb, as it appears perhaps we may have done, we shall in due course get violent crime, too, under better control. I assure the House that the Government will continue to give the highest priority to the combating of crime and the development of policies in support of law and order, and particularly in the support and strengthening of the police, as we have done over the last three years. It will not be easy, but we shall do everything we possibly can to continue the trend about which I have spoken.

8.26 p.m.

Mr. Alfred Morris: I shall try to be brief. This is an important debate in which


many hon. Members on both sides of the House wish to take part. My hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin (Mrs. Shirley Williams) moved the motion both persuasively and in terms of moderation. As the House knows, I have the honour to act as parliamentary adviser to the Police Federation. Thus I have a special interest in this debate.
The motion refers to the serious under-manning in certain police forces, notably the Metropolitan Police. None can gainsay the seriousness of the current situation in the metropolis. I am grateful to the Minister of State and his right hon. Friend for the information they gave me yesterday in reply to parliamentary Questions. I was told that on 30th June 1973 there were 5,031 vacancies in the Metropolitan Police. I was also told that during the year ending 30th June 1973, 1,089 police officers were recruited into the Metropolitan Police Force and that the wastage figure was 1,324. The trend for wastage to exceed recruitment is extremely serious and the number of voluntary resignations is deeply disturbing.
In this debate we should be concerned not merely with figures. There is also a human story. I am sure many hon. Members appreciate that police officers, especially in the Metropolitan area, work under considerable strain. They work very long hours and are subjected to frequent weekend work. The Minister of State in a further parliamentary reply gave me the number of hours worked by various ranks in the Metropolitan Police. A detective constable on average works 59·3 hours a week. A first-class sergeant in the CID works on average 59·5 hours a week. A detective inspector works on average 58·5 hours a week and a detective chief inspector works on average 59 hours a week. Those figures are for the month of June 1972, when there was a Police Council survey.
A sample survey in the Metropolitan Police Force last September showed that the average number of hours worked each week were 50·6. These figures may come as a surprise to some hon. Members. They emphasise the considerable strain under which police officers have to dischange their onerous duties.
I have been told of police officer in the Metropolitan Police who submitted his

resignation today. He is a man of some exprience in the force, but he is leaving to become a building worker. For a standard working week he will be paid £40. He will also enjoy, by contract of employment, a bonus of £12 a week. If he works overtime special benefits will be added to his basic pay of £52 a week.

Mr. Thomas Cox: Labour-only subcontracting?

Mr. Morris: I cannot say whether he will be working as a building trade unionist or with the "lump". It is, however, most disquieting that trained policemen should leave the Metropolitan force to take jobs that many would say are of less social importance for more pay. It costs a great deal of money to train a police officer. If we are to to avoid wasting public money, we must avoid the increasing wastage of trained police officers. The Home Secretary rightly said that there is no ground for complacency. I am sure that sentiment will be echoed again and again as the debate proceeds.
Let us look in more detail at the number of vacancies in the Metropolitan and other police forces.
If one were to denude the city of Manchester and the city of Liverpool entirely of police officers and transfer them to the metropolitan area, there would still be vacancies for police officers in the metropolis. Indeed, if we were to take every police officer from the whole of Wales and transfer them to the metropolitan area, we would barely meet the present requirements for manpower in the metropolis. At the latest date for which I have full figures, it would appear that Manchester and Salford, Liverpool and Bootle, Leeds, Birmingham, Liverpool, Sheffield, Rotherham and Bradford would be entirely without police officers if the national shortage were concentrated in those areas. I hope this fact will be taken as seriously as it should be by everybody who takes part in this debate.
The Home Secretary referred to stage 2 of the Government's prices and incomes policy. At the recent Police Federation conference, held at Blackpool, it was emphasised that the necessary radical improvement in the payment of police officers in the metropolis must be in


straight addition to the impending increases in pay for police officers throughout the country. The right hon. Gentleman said that he could not depart from stage 2, but I hope that the Minister of State will make it clear in his reply that the differential pay increase for the Metropolitan Police Force will in no way reduce the money available for pay increases to police officers generally.
At the Police Federation conference it was not just Metropolitan Police men and women who argued for a differential increase. There were delegates from Wales and from many other parts of the country who said that the situation in the metropolis was so serious that there must be an immediate and substantial increase in pay for Metropolitan Police officers to stop the haemorrhage. What is required is not just an increase in pay, but that action should be taken to improve the status of police officers. I was pleased to hear the right hon. Gentleman say he regards this as important. I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House will agree on that point.

Mr. Thomas Cox: I am interested in my hon. Friend's point. Does he not agree that this is not solely a matter of pay—although that is one of the principal issues confronting the police—but is bound up with the attitude in terms of discipline of treating the police as silly schoolboys rather than as grown-up men. From my discussions with police officers I have noted the bitter resentment among many of them at the way in which disciplinary procedures are imposed against them. They are not against discipline, but they are against the way in which they are treated.

Mr. Morris: I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Wandsworth, Central (Mr. Thomas Cox) has been in touch with police officers in his constituency, and I agree with him that status, like pay, is very important. We cannot expect a properly established police force unless we are prepared to pay the officers adequately. But we must also consider the way in which the police are treated in society. I have said on other occasions that police officers have their civil rights just like other people and that they are entitled to respect and status in society. I agree with what has been said by the

right hon. Gentleman, and by my hon. Friend, about the need to improve pay and also conditions of employment and the general status of the police officer in society.
I said that I would be brief, and I shall now conclude my remarks. I am happy, as is the Police Federation, that this debate is taking place. I hope that its outcome will be a strengthening of the undermanned police forces to bring them to their proper establishment throughout the country—not only in London but in the West Midlands, Manchester and wherever police forces are now working below establishment. Most of all, I hope that at an early date we shall be able to end the serious haemorrhage in the metropolitan area.

8.38 p.m.

Mr. Norman Fowler: I, too, intend to be brief and to follow the example set by the hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Alfred Morris), to whom the House always listens with such interest on police matters.
I welcome the opportunity given to the House by the Opposition to debate this important subject—although I am a little surprised at the ground on which they have chosen to fight. Nobody would question their concern at rising crime rates, nor would anybody deny that the police force should be adequately staffed. But when the Opposition seek to deplore the Government's failure to act on police recruiting, I am bound to ask by what standards they condemn and deplore the Government, and by what right they make such an assertion.
The hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Hitchin (Mrs. Shirley Williams) who did not mention this subject in her speech, cannot brush aside the fact that it was the last Labour Government who were the first Government in peacetime to put restrictions upon police recruiting. For the Opposition now to lament the position of the Metropolitan Police—I personally believe that it is serious—is ludicrous, because in 1968 it was the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police who was lamenting that the then Government's policy of restrictions, not only upon police personnel but upon civilian staff as well,


meant that civilian staff in the Metropolitan Police was restricted to a total rise of 250 in the 15 months starting in 1968, which the Commissioner then said was vastly below establishment.
When the hon. Lady comes to this House and deplores this Government's attitude and policy on police recruiting I am bound to say that this Government have reversed that policy of restriction. It is not purely historical curiosity, but, however the figures are juggled and added up, it cannot be denied that in those two years the police lost men who would otherwise have come into the service. Indeed, had police recruiting continued at the level at which it was going in the two years before the restrictions were imposed, the forces today would be several thousand stronger.
What cannot be denied also is that men who were lost at that time were men who, in all probability, were lost for good. The nub of the Opposition's charge is nonsense. They know that it is nonsense, and we should all relax and have a serious debate about the police service, as the hon. Member for Wythenshawe has done. Unquestionably the police face serious problems. I suggest that what is causing these problems is the increasing complexity and the increasing demands of police work which are using up an increasing amount of police time and an increasing amount of police manpower. In the area of complaints we expect the police service properly to investigate complaints against the police. But remember what the cost of that is.
In the Metropolitan Police there is a department which is staffed by 100 experienced officers doing nothing but investigating complaints. There are one commander, five chief superintendents, 22 superintendents, 14 chief inspectors and 40 sergeants. This is not a side issue of police in society as a whole—it is an issue that we expect of the police and we readily do so. But it obviously takes them away from their traditional rôle of preventing and detecting crime.
The pressure of police work is again seen at its sharpest in the Metropolitan Police area. Detectives are faced with almost impossible case loads. Last year no fewer than 76,000 burglaries were investigated in London. On average that means that a detective has three hours to

solve and clear up one burglary before moving on to the next. Faced with pressures of this kind, with these new tasks being put on the police, it is not surprising that men resign. There are easier, more profitable and less demanding ways of making a living in this country, although I would assert there are probably few ways which are, in the ultimate, more rewarding.
Employers—particularly employers in the industrial centres we are talking about in London, the West Midlands and West Yorkshire—obviously value the kind of people who come into the police service because they are so outstandingly good, and it is in these areas that employers are able to recruit so well. It is there, too, that our biggest shortages are taking place. Many points have already been made on police recruiting policy generally but we should not just confine ourselves to police recruiting policy, important as that is.
First, I believe that we should examine the police critically to see whether all the rôles which they are now carrying out are rôles that the police services has to carry out. One example concerns traffic. Is it necessary for the police to police our motorways in the way that they do now? The theory is that the two rôles of the police can never be divided. However, it used to be the theory that only trained policemen could direct traffic. Whether or not that view persists, we must look very seriously at the immense amount of police manpower and time spent in our courts on traffic offences. In Germany there is a ticket system with built-in safeguards. Without commitment, that is a system that we could examine to see whether it would work in this country.
Secondly, I believe that we must improve the effectiveness of our methods of detecting crime. Increasingly we are threatened by the professional and the semi-professional criminal, especially in London, by which I mean those specialising in robbery and fraud. Only a squad which is prepared to specialise in a specific type of crime will have any success. In London, the Serious Crime Squad dealing with robbery has had a marked effect and great success. I believe that the regional crime squad concept should also be expanded and that such


squads should take on crimes involving fraud and drugs.
Having said that, I believe that we should also examine the context in which the police operate, and that means the criminal law. We must see whether the traditional checks which we once considered necessary are not now aids to the professional and the semi-professional criminal. The Criminal Law Revision Committee which reported a year ago believed that they were. It believed that changes should be made. Its report was published in June 1972, and it represented several years' work by the committee. It has never been debated in this House. Obviously it is controversial, but the fact that it has not been debated is quite deplorable. It is likely to lead to the impression that this House does not take seriously—

Mr. John Mendelson: Not at all.

Mr. Fowler: I think that the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. John Mendelsohn) will concede that at least it should be debated.

Mr. Mendelson: It is quite wrong to assert that this House does not take the report seriously. Many hon. Members have urged the Government to consider it further because of their strong objections to some of the proposals in it. It is wrong to make this charge.

Mr. Fowler: Very well. I withdraw what I said. Instead I shall make my charge against the Government for not bringing the report before the House quickly. Perhaps that will satisfy the hon. Gentleman more. My point is that this is an important report which should be debated on the Floor of the House.
My third and most important point is that we must concentrate upon raising the general status of the police service and of policemen generally. We must concentrate especially upon the man in uniform, who in many ways is doing just as complicated a job as a trained detective. We must move towards the concept of community police with policemen living in the communities that they police. This is easy enough in some areas. In others it is not so easy, especially in city centres. But it follows that if we are to move towards a concept where the police-

man is carrying out a kind of general practitioner rôle the rewards must be adequate.
What worries me most about the pay structure of the police service—it has been attacked on a number of grounds—is that rewards are not given for experience. Most officers remain constables throughout their police service. Outside London the pay of a police constable goes up to £1,800 a year after six years' service. It takes him a further 11 years to get over the £2,000 mark for the first time. This structure does not seem to be geared to reward the experienced police officer. It is no way to treat a professional policeman. We must recognise that police service is becoming a demanding profession. We in this country are extremely fortunate in the standards of our police. Therefore, we must ensure that our financial treatment of this service shows clearly the importance that the nation places upon it.

8.50 p.m.

Mr. Ernest G. Perry: I have listened intently to the speech by the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Fowler). I do not wish to take up his remarks as many hon. Members wish to take part in the debate.
There has been an improvement in the police service. Traffic wardens help the police with their duties. The Metropolitan Police is only too glad to have these additional forces. They represent a great asset to the police.
As a London Member I should like to pay tribute to the Metropolitan Police. In doing so, I wish to concentrate on the phrase used by the hon. Gentleman, "the permanent policeman." I pay tribute to the chap who remains a permanent police constable in London and serves his 25 years or 30 years on the beat building up a community spirit. In this connection I pay special tribute to one particular police constable who has served for over 25 years in Battersea—Police Constable Payne. He has built up a community service by putting notices in shop windows so that everybody knows the state of the crime rate and what is going on in Battersea. That police constable, with the assistance of his sergeants, superintendents and everybody else, has carried out a first-class job. Therefore, I publicly thank and pay tribute to him.
Police constables who serve for up to 25 years in the force provide a good public service and we should be thankful to them. Those who do not leave after five or 10 years but stay on and live in the community know everybody there and take part in the ordinary affairs of the community. I pay tribute to that kind of policeman.
What worries people in London more than anything else is the large immigrant population, which many other cities do not have, which creates some difficulties with our police. I want to be quite frank. The police try to be tolerant. Ordinary police officers do not speak half a dozen languages. They do not understand every language that is now spoken in this country. When they interview immigrants they cannot always understand what they say and their job is made so much more difficult. I pay tribute to them for the tolerance they display when interviewing such people.
I cross swords with the Home Department—not with the police, because they are not responsible—over the closure of a police station in Cavendish Road on the boundary between Clapham and Battersea. The hon. Member for Clapham (Mr. William Shelton) is also concerned about this matter. The station had been in operation since the turn of the century, and we take exception to its closure within the last few months. Local people feel that they have been betrayed because there are not the policemen there now that there were six months ago. There have been some nasty incidents in South London. When a foreign food shop was attacked with fire bombs, the police were called in and they did all that they could to discover the people responsible, but without success. The Home Secretary should consider the situation very carefully before he closes any more police stations in South London.
The circumstances of a police constable today are very different from what they were three years ago. I was a member of the insurance profession, and I know from personal experience that three years ago constables and sergeants were able to contemplate buying their own houses because their salaries and rent allowances enabled them to do so.
Unfortunately, the situation has changed since then and today their allowances are insufficient to enable them to contemplate buying a house in London. If they want to own their own houses, they have to move a long way out of inner London. A few years ago it was the ambition of many constables to buy their own houses so that when they retired they would have a place of their own in which to live. They cannot do that today, and I therefore ask the Home Secretary and the Home Department to go into this question very carefully.
Police pensions should be reviewed regularly and increased to meet rises in the cost of living. I do not think that a policeman who has served for 25 years and then retired should have to act as a traffic warden—or what is called a "lollipop man"—in order to earn a living wage.

Mr. Roger White: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that police widows' pensions should be subject to the same kind of review?

Mr. Perry: I could not agree more. A woman who has lost her husband in the service of the force should have her pension reviewed regularly to ensure that she does not suffer financial hardship because the cost of living rises.
I am glad we have had this debate today. I conclude by paying tribute to the Metropolitan Police and in particular to those police officers in South London who have an onerous job to do and do it extremely well.

8.58 p.m.

Mr. Michael Shersby: I listened with great interest to the speech of the hon. Member for Battersea, South (Mr. Ernest G. Perry). I realise that in considering questions of police manpower the House is inevitably concerned with conditions of pay and employment. These are important aspects of the matter, but in my view they are only part of a much wider problem, namely, the rôle of the policeman in modern society. We as a House have to raise our sights and look to new horizons if we are to begin to understand and to take action to deal with the problems of recruiting a sufficient number of men and women to be the policemen and policewomen of the 1970s and 1980s.
It is, I believe, desirable that the Government should commission a completely fresh and independent study of the rôle of the police and the administration of criminal justice. Apart from direct threats to the stability of the State based upon insurgency, insurrection and subversion, and the increased use of violence and terrorism throughout the world, new methods for the expression of dissent pose new challenges to the maintenance of law and order.
A greater consciousness of individual rights and a reassessment of political and social priorities regularly bring the law, the police and the whole of the law enforcement process openly into question. Police effectiveness may be assessed in a number of ways, but the problem for a democratic society remains the same: the maintenance of the balance between police efficiency and individual liberty.
Police activity is, of course, only one part of the machinery of law enforcement. For example, the police and the criminal courts need to be seen as part of an integrated system and the relationship between the two examined. Another area which vitally affects the extent of police manpower is the rôle of social policy which both controls the design of the system and sets the parameters for its operation. It is only necessary, for example, to refer to gaming and pornography to illustrate the need for a study of the effects of penal legislation on the law enforcement system and in particular on police manpower.
There are other important subjects which also call for new and fresh study, like the maintenance of law and order in industrial disputes, the impact of social change on police training and deployment and the impact of police work on policemen's families. This last, I believe, is an absolutely crucial problem. It is policemen's wives whom we have to think about, as well as policemen and policewomen on the beat. There is also the question of general manpower wastage.
These are but a few of the matters which could be the subject of a careful study and assessment by an independent body. Such a study could be conducted by a university, which can marshal the necessary personnel and facilities to do the job, independent of the Government. I therefore hope that my right hon. Friend

the Secretary of State will give this proposal careful consideration when he is reviewing the longer-term aspects of police manpower.
I believe that today organised crime presents the gravest threat to civilised society. It is this aspect of police work which above all demands the undivided attention of the regular police force, while the less pressing matters could be dealt with by ancillary forces. A good example of such work is traffic control. We all know how satisfactorily the traffic wardens are operating throughout the country.
But if the regular force is to concern itself with organised crime, who, it may be asked, is to carry out the tasks that are traditionally the rôle of the constable on the beat? There is an answer to this problem in the expansion and reorganisation of the Specials, on the basis that they could provide a valuable assistance and back up for the regular force.
In recent years the rôle of the Specials has been rather muted, although we all know that they do much valuable work. The very name of this section perhaps conjures up less happy associations today than it used to. I therefore suggest that the Specials should be renamed the Voluntary Constabulary, or the VCs for short, although I realise that that could have unfortunate connotations as well. A voluntary force of this kind could be expanded to draw into police work men and women who would willingly give up time for voluntary public service.
Let me make it clear that I see a voluntary constabulary as being an adjunct to the regular force and in no sense a rival force. Nor should voluntary constables be vigilantes in any sense. They should continue, like the Specials of today, to be uniformed members of the force who would take the lead from the trained regular members. In other words, the police should tap that rich vein of voluntary service which exists in our society and use it to make a dramatic reduction in the problem of police manpower. This is particularly true as regards the Metropolitan Police.
I am confident that there are sufficient police training facilities available to train a larger voluntary force and that the police colleges could meet an increased demand. I think it is true to say that


the police training available at colleges like Bramshill and Hendon is one of the most saleable properties we have for foreign Powers. They all come here to have their police trained at our colleges. I therefore ask my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State to consider the possibility of using these facilities to expand the rôle of the Specials on the lines I have suggested.
It is said that we get the police we deserve. This is the title of a new book which is to be published next week and the authors of which are policemen. One is Assistant Commissioner John Alderson, who is Commandant of the Police College, Bramshill, and the other is Mr. Philip Stead, who is Dean of Academic Studies at Bramshill. I commend this book to those interested in the future of the police and I give this quotation from the final paragraph of the authors' introduction:
Police progress in this country has been marked by the national predilection for consensus. The discussions of innumerable committees at many levels, the compromises which so discourage the idealist and the radical, have no doubt slowed down the pace of change within the service. Whatever its administrative disadvantages, this has had the effect of keeping police reform within the bounds of what the public and the police themselves feel to be acceptable. This book is meant to encourage and extend the debate which in England is the great agent of improvement.
I hope that we have this evening commenced that great debate on the improvement and reform of the police and that it will be carried on in the months ahead with profitable results for both the police and the public who are served by this wonderful police force we have in our country.

9.7 p.m.

Mr. Neville Sandelson: I shall be fairly brief because the case we have against the Government has been most succinctly put by my hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin (Mrs. Shirley Williams).
I listened to the Home Secretary with the respect which he always commands in this House, though I must say that his speech will provide but cold comfort for the public, some of the more gullible of whom feel badly let down by the performance of his Government since the General Election compared with the law and order propaganda which the right hon.

Gentleman and his right hon. and hon. Friends were emitting only three years ago. I am glad, however, that the Home Secretary paid tribute to the police, as, indeed, hon. Members on both sides of the House have done. I hope that the general public will take note of these tributes from both sides of the House, and I hope that the police themselves will take note of the tributes we have paid them and realise that those tributes are not paid in any merely formal sense but genuinely reflect the admiration which all of us in this House have for the police and for their services to the community.
I listened with interest to the very human touch introduced into the debate by my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea. South (Mr. Ernest G. Perry) when he referred to one constable in particular in that area. I am quite sure that one could multiply that instance many times over through the length and breadth of the country.
I am not entitled to speak on behalf of the Bar or any part of it but I know that the vast majority of those practising in our criminal courts will endorse my view that the Metropolitan Police receive too many kicks—many of the unfortunately, are quite literally kicks—and not nearly enough medals. In my professional duties I see some of the less worthy police officers as well as the great majority of first-class policemen. They are the most wrongly abused and maligned body of public servants in this country.
One recognises that the serious under-manning to which the Commissioner refers, which is properly acknowledge by the Home Secretary, existed under the previous Government, and under Governments previous to them. Nevertheless, far from there having been an improvement in the recruitment and manning position, there has been a relatively decline. Largely, all that we have been subjected to this evening is a plethora of statistics coming not entirely from the Home Secretary but from both sides of the House in an effort by both sides to establish that times were somewhat better when they were in power than they are now or were when the other side was in power.
Earlier I used the term "cold comfort". None of this will bring very much comfort to the general public, who are concerned only with the position as


they see it today. The present Government were returned to power after all the grandiloquent assurances in June 1970 as to how they would deal with the problem of law and order, amounting almost to an insidious suggestion that somehow their predecessors were responsible for the increase in crime that the country was experiencing and that by way of a magic wand they would be able to change the position radically. The Government have been unable to do that. They are now being hoist with their own petard and are facing the same problems in this matter as previous Governments. They are succeeding rather less than their predecessors in handling these same problems.
If we had had fewer grandiloquent assurances about what the Government would do and a few more of the firm and enlightened measures that were introduced by the Labour Government during the years before 1970, the country would to some extent have felt that the position had improved since the General Election. Unfortunately, that has not been so.
The difficulties of recruitment and of the continuing erosion of strength by early retirements from the Metropolitan Police force are aggravated all the time, as we know, by the evils of inflation, which make remuneration levels, let alone conditions of work, ever more repellent to young men of the kind we want to attract to the force. They are a natural inducement to mature serving officers to leave for other fields where the going is obviously a great deal better.
I have always believed that one of the most urgent priorities for our society was the need to reappraise occupational rewards in terms of value and service to the community. Certain types of work—coal mining is an obvious example—are so arduous and unpleasant that society must be prepared, as it has been to some extent, to pay beyond the norm for work which the overwhelming majority would not themselves be willing to do. For that same reason, certain categories of unskilled workers, such as the people who empty our dustbins, sewage workers, and so on, will have to be paid, and should be paid, at a high rate. Different criteria

will apply to other Forms of Public Service.
I cannot understand our meanness to the police. Both sides of the House recognise their indispensability. It is a truism that without the maintenance of law and order all else would go by the board, yet no serious appraisal has yet been made of the pay structure of the police relative to other occupations and relative to the vital rôle they play in the daily life of the whole community.
I wish the Government would now make a decisive break with the past. Despite the claims of other groups, worthy though their claims may be—we shall no doubt hear a great deal about them as the autumn approaches—I wish the Government would set about the urgent task of establishing police remuneration levels on an altogether different plane from those which have existed up to now. There is no other way of resolving the perennial problems of under-manning and early retirement.
Although it is interesting in an academic way to listen to Front Bench speakers comparing the relative performance of their Governments, that does not go near to finding a satisfactory solution. The nation is looking for a solution. I hope that once the Government have revised police remuneration in a necessarily dramatic way—the Government would not expect me to suggest figures for such a restructuring, but it would have to be a dramatic revision—police pay levels will be tied to threshold agreements.
Beneficial consequences would flow from some of these things, not the least of which would be the attraction into the force of men of high calibre and educational attainments. I was particularly struck by the passage in the Commissioner's report dealing with investigations into fraud. This type of crime is very much on the increase. One of the major difficulties about bringing people to book is the enormous delay because of what prove to be complicated and protracted inquiries. I hope that new recruitment will bring in men of the calibre required to assist the present Fraud Squad in dealing with more of these cases, and dealing with them more expeditiously.
On the question of housing or other accommodation for police officers, we


must realise sooner rather than later that, in the same way as if we want adequate local bus services we must provide accommodation locally for the bus crews, this is equally true of the police. They cannot any longer afford to buy houses in the areas in which they work. Therefore, we shall have to ensure that a small but adequate amount of accommodation is permanently available through the councils for police officers serving in their areas. That would go a long way to assisting the concept of community living to which hon. Members have referred as a vital part of the rôle that the police can play in the community at large.
The question of the rent allowance and of rent aid for police officers living in their own privately-owned accommodation needs urgent reconsideration in terms of local valuation assessments. I hope that the Home Secretary will consider these matters in a more generous spirit than has been the case in the past.

9.20 p.m.

Mr. Edward Gardner: I agree with the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Sandelson) when he says that the public are looking for solutions rather than exciting debates on this subject.
The points I wish to raise relate to the status of the police force and to violent crime. I believe, as no doubt do all hon. Members, that pay is highly important, but just as important is the status of the profession of being a police officer. It has been said many times, and it may sound trite, that people who come to this country recognise, and rightly so, in our police force the best police force in the world. This is their opinion whether they come from the East or the West.
Like other hon. Members I have been to many parts of the world, where I have inspected police forces, but I am unable to point to any police force, including this country, that attracts higher regard from the public than does the force in my part of the country in Lancashire.
I am most disturbed by what I believe to be a large volume of good will, which the police should retain, being dissipated daily through the police coming inevitably in the course of their duty into conflict with the motorist. Unhappily, and I say this with reluctance and regret, there are members of the police force who seem

to treat the motorist who has erred but who has not been either dishonest or violent in the same way as they would treat someone whom they believe to have committed a dishonest or violent crime.
I do not know the answer to this problem except that we might begin to reconsider, as we considered in the past, the possibility of a separate part of the force, or even having a separate force, to deal with traffic offences. This would do much to enable the public to distinguish between real crime, which is the basic concern of the police, and the offences which concern only the motorist.
It came to my notice a short while ago, when I heard what I should not have heard, that of the members of a jury which had been called to try a serious crime two were said to have declared to their fellow members of the jury before any evidence was heard that they would not be prepared to convict on police evidence. When they were asked why they had made this extraordinary statement, they both said independently that they had been charged with and convicted of motoring offences of which they believed they should not have been convicted.

Mr. Thomas Cox: Everyone in prison says that.

Mr. Gardner: I hope that that is an extreme and isolated example of the way in which good will can be and is on occasion dissipated. Of course, people who are properly convicted and resent their conviction deserve no sympathy—[Interruption.] I am seeking to put forward a serious point. No doubt everyone who is convicted resents it, but I suggest that when a motorist feels that he has been treated, for example, with discourtesy, and certainly when he feels, as some do, rightly or wrongly, that he has been convicted on evidence which does not entirely align with what he sees as the truth, resentment is caused.
The Government, greatly to their credit, have widely extended the range and choice of punishments which are now available to the courts. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary mentioned in passing last year's Criminal Justice Act, which did just that. The public do not always realise that, no matter what the Government may do by making available a wide range of penalty, it is ultimately


the sole decision of the courts to select the penalty.
I hope that both sides of the House can agree that the courts should not neglect the feeling of hon. Members and the country at large that, where possible, they should avoid passing a sentence of imprisonment and instead impose a punishment that will meet the crime without loss of liberty. But most hon. Members, and certainly the majority of people in the country, will want to be comforted and to be certain that the courts will ensure that those who commit crimes of violence are not allowed out until it is safe for them to come out of prison, not because it is necessary so much to punish violence but because it is necessary to protect the public against the violent criminal. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will do what he can with propriety to persuade the courts to accept this philosophy and to see that violent crime is met with appropriate penalty.

9.28 p.m.

Mr. Robert Parry: It is unfortunate that we have been allowed only three hours to debate this important subject. In the few minutes available to me I should like to make a couple of points that I hope the Home Secretary will consider.
First, more encouragement should be given to chief constables of the provincial police authorities further to increase foot patrols. Secondly, more encouragement and assistance should be given to retain the bobby on the beat.
I speak with some experience of the decline of law and order in the large provincial city. Within the past four days a man has been shot in my constituency and a young man brutally stabbed a number of times.
In her opening speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin (Mrs. Shirley Williams) dealt mainly with the problems of the Metropolitan Police and the increasing crime in London. I should like to deal briefly with the problems of a provincial city, particularly the increased problems faced by the police in the inner areas of our provincial cities. We face increasing crime not only in London but in all our major provincial cities.
A constituency like mine, which covers central Liverpool, has within its boundaries all the problems affecting modern society—drugs, vandalism, violence, drunkenness and mugging, and with the two cases to which I have referred, danger to life and limb.
At a recent meeting held in my constituency, which was attended by over 300 people, including senior police officers, clergy, teachers and welfare workers, a resolution was passed unanimously requesting the chief constable of Liverpool and Bootle Police Force to increase the foot patrols in Liverpool. I am well aware of the problems facing the police in Liverpool and Bootle. I know a number of the senior officers and police constables. We do not want in Liverpool or anywhere else in the country the sort of society which we see existing in New York and Chicago where people are frightened to open their front doors or walk the streets at night.
I go along with the suggestion of differential rates of pay for London police officers, but I should not confine the differential to London. Police officers in all large cities have a tremendous problem, and if the answer is to give them more money, they deserve it.

9.31 p.m.

Mr. John Fraser: I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Exchange (Mr. Parry) and the hon. and learned Member for South Fylde (Mr. Gardner) that the public must be protected against the violent criminal. But the public must also be protected against the violent motorist. The hon. and learned Gentleman made an unwarrantable attack upon the police. If, as happens in many families, a child is injured, maimed or killed, there is exactly the same feeling of revulsion as there is when a criminal has stabbed his victim. The police are doing their job in protecting the public in both instances.
The hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Fowler) and the Secretary of State for the Home Department suggested that the last Labour Government had deliberately cut down recruitment, including civilian recruitment, of the Metropolitan Police in 1968. Let us get the figures clear. The net increase in the Metropolitan Police since 1st July, 1970 has been 151. In 1968 the increase in police recruitment from the


1967 figure was 462. In one year, therefore, the total increase was three times the total increase in recruitment since the present Government came to power. The total increase in the recruitment of civilians in 1969 over recruitment in 1968 was 1,389. The total increase in recruitment since the end of 1970 under the present Government has been 1,052.

Mr. Fowler: rose—

Mr. Fraser: This debate is concerned with two issues. The first, is the rising tide of crime, particularly crimes of violence, which is an interference with personal liberty and rights. The second issue is our assertion that the Government have in some respects failed to meet their obligation to society. Our accusation is that in some areas of the country, particularly in the metropolis, police forces have been allowed to become undermanned. They have been reduced in size and intolerably overstrained. The Government may be incapable of controlling the disease of rising crime but they are directly capable of providing a prescription to deal with that disease.
I accept that any politician, of any party, needs a good deal of modesty and humility in any claim which he makes to deal with rising crime. Whichever Government have been in power, crime has regrettably and tragically increased. The present Government might have spared themselves some of the self-congratulation in their amendment. If they want any chastisement, they might like to go back to the fount of Conservative knowledge before the last General Election—namely, Mr. Quinton Hogg as he then was. He could hardly open his mouth without talking about law and order.
I give one quotation from a speech made at the beginning of 1970. He said:
 … the Prime Minister is presiding complacently over the biggest crime wave of the century and does not seem aware of it … Of course, says the Left Wing. But much of this increase took place under the Tories. Or, even more smugly, they say the rate of increase is going down, as if what mattered was the rate of increase and not the continuance each year of an all-time high on top of an all-time high on top of an all-time high. It is the continued increase not the rate which should command public attention and concern.
That was in February 1970. At that time indictable offences known to the

police totalled 1,488,638 and there was no complacency about those figures.
By 1971 the present Prime Minister was presiding over the biggest crime total ever, an increase of 10 per cent. over the fire and brimstone period mentioned by the present Lord Chancellor. In 1972—the totals are not directly comparable because of a change in classification—the figures had gone up by 3½ per cent. for the country as a whole and 4·1 per cent. for London. We have had three years of Conservative rule and 1972 has given us
an all-time high on top of an all-time high on top of an all-time high.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Mark Carlisle): The 3·5 per cent. figure is directly comparable. The one given by the hon. Member for Hitchin (Mrs. Shirley Williams) is not comparable.

Mr. Fraser: It is directly comparable with the preceding year, not the year before that. I hope that we never again get those bombastic splutterings which we had from the present Lord Chancellor.
I do not say that the Government are directly responsible. There are, of course, a number of factors over which they have control and which are conducive to crime and anti-social behaviour. I have in mind such things as unemployment and the degrading conditions under which some children leave school, where goals are held out to them but they do not have the opportunity of achieving them. Such things are relevant to the crime rate.
The preventive services which can be provided by the Government are relevant too. In the metropolis, children's officer after children's officer and police officer after police officer will continue to assert that they are responding to a crisis and that the resources for dealing with juvenile delinquency are totally inadequate.
There are pitiful housing conditions which make it impossible for people to live in dignity and with the kind of values which lead people to become law-abiding citizens. Other such factors involve the supply of probation officers and so on. These are areas in which the Government can indirectly influence the crime figures.
One sector in which they have a direct responsibility, particularly in London, is


the strength of police forces. Let us get the facts into perspective. We are delighted to hear that there has been an increase in many police forces in the United Kingdom, but there still remain areas which are undermanned. The West Yorkshire force is 16 per cent. undermanned, the West Midland force 25 per cent., Birmingham 15 per cent., Liverpool 10 per cent. and Manchester 9 per cent., while London, the only force for which the Home Secretary is directly responsible, is 20 per cent. under establishment. It is under establishment by a number equal to the total establishment of the forces of Manchester-Salford and Liverpool Bootle—and at a time when crime is increasing.
Let us put the metropolitan figure into perspective. In 1972 crime in London rose by 4·1 per cent. but the strength of the Metropolitan Police fell by 65 men. From 1st January 1972 to 1st April 1973 the strength fell by 120 men. From 1st April 1972 to 1st April 1973 it fell by 263 men, a serious trend.
Frome 1st June 1972 to 1st June 1973 the strength of the Metropolitan Police fell by 453. That is in a climate of rising crime, against the background of the massive recruiting campaign and against the background of a police force expecting many retirements in the coming years. For instance, there are now almost 1,500 men of the age of 52 who will be retiring in the next three years, 902 of the age of 53 and 499 of the age of 54. It is a far cry from the statement in "A Better Tomorrow" about strengthening the police force in London, and this is a matter for which the Home Secretary is directly responsible.
It is no use talking about the strength of the police forces throughout the rest of the United Kingdom. It is no comfort to be told by the Home Secretary, when a bank is robbed in Brixton, when someone is stabbed in Streatham or when a man is mugged in Marylebone, that the police in Devon, Norfolk and Suffolk are the best deterrent to crime. They are not a deterrent to crime in the Metropolitan Police area.
The Home Secretary has said in answer to questions that there were two difficulties in London. One difficulty,

concerning the Police Federation, has been removed. The other arises from the prices and incomes policy which was of the Home Secretary's own making. Now that the Police Federation has withdrawn its objection to separate increases for London, the Home Secretary can have no further alibi.
We must have an urgent review of pay and conditions in the Metropolitan Police. These are pay and conditions which drive experienced officers away from the force and which this year have resulted in an all-time high of 714 experienced officers leaving the force without pension, let alone those who choose to go after their 25 years' service is completed.
The review which I urge should include a number of matters. First, it should look at pay. Secondly, it should look at the damage which rocketing property values cause to the police service in London. This is damaging the police service in the same way as it is damaging the education service, the transport service and other social services. The increase in house prices has been 109 per cent. since the Government came to power and in my constituency the increase has been much higher.
Thirdly, there should be a review of the rent allowance, which is already based on an under-valuation of property and is nonsensical when the maximum London rent allowance is £10 a week for a constable and it is greater in Surrey and Hertfordshire and likely soon to be greater in the Thames Valley. The review should consider the hours of work of the police and the domestic disruption caused by these hours. Uniformed men work up to 50 hours a week or more if there is a demonstration in their area or if they apprehend a criminal the night before they are due to go on leave, which involves them appearing in court with him the next day. The hours worked by CID officers should also be reviewed. In my area such officers work between 60 and 80 hours a week.
Fourthly, the review should also take into account the kind of things which we expect from the police over and above the traditional law and order services which they provide to the community. We expect them to engage in community relations and in preventive


work among juveniles. They are expected not only to exercise all the traditional duties but to be patient, understanding and experienced in dealing with social situations as well as criminal situations. Far too often the police have to take the brunt and frustrations of the discontent of society. Because they are the visible embodiment of authority, they take knocks for matters over which they have no control.
Fifthly, the review should look at the shortage of manpower in the metropolitan force which prevents the police from keeping in touch with the ordinary public. I do not blame them for this, as their numbers are stretched, but it is important that the police should be out on the beat so that they get to know members of the public and the communal difficulties of each area, thus securing the confidence and co-operation of the ordinary public as well as meeting those who have committed infractions of the law.
I hope that the review will also consider the possibility of recruiting more coloured policemen in the London force, because it is important that every force should reflect the social composition of the population which it controls. I hope it will not continue, but there is a regrettable and rising trend in crime.
I close with two quotations. The first comes from the irrepressible Quintin Hogg. He said that we need more police and that, if need be, we must pay for them. That is a thought with which I agree, particularly in relation to the metropolitan force. The second quotation punctures some of the complacency about the London situation. In his report for 1972 the Commisioner of the Metropolitan Police, Sir Robert Mark, stated:
The check in manpower growth suffered in 1972 and the serious outlook for the future have, I feel sure, developed from the special and mounting problems we are facing in the metropolis. The situation underlines the urgent need for greater public awareness and more material recognition of the vital service the men and women in the Force give to the community, often in unpleasant, difficult and dangerous circumstances.
We in the Opposition give that recognition. We express our support for the police and for their splendid achievements.
We condemn the Government for their failure in the metropolis to face up to the

obvious and serious crisis in the maintenance of law and order. I can remember night after night facing the right hon. Gentleman when he assured us, when we were in office, that he would never introduce a prices and incomes policy. Although we want to see more policemen in London, and although we need to pay them more, the Secretary of State and the Government have tied their own hands in dealing with the problem of rising crime and law and order in the metropolis.

9.46 p.m.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Mark Carlisle): I, too, am grateful for the opportunity we have had of debating the subject of the police. I think that all who have spoken have taken the opportunity to put on record their respect and regard for the police. We should be anxious to express our support for the police.
I welcome particularly the speech of the hon. Member for Battersea, South (Mr. Ernest G. Perry), which I thought was typical of the way in which many people feel about the police force in their area. He mentioned particularly what the police are attempting to do about community relations. I accept what the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. John Fraser) said and reaffirm the need for more coloured policemen.
There is no doubt that the police have an important and often difficult task in maintaining law and order at a time when violence is growing in many parts of the world. It is a task which is essential in the interests of all of us in this country. It is a task which is essential to the continuance of a free democracy, and it is aimed at ensuring that people can go about their everyday lives without fear of attack on themselves and their property. The police are in the forefront of the fight against crime, and they deserve the support of the House.
What I regret is the critical nature of the motion—and I point out to the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Sandelson) that it was not our choice—and the fact that the Opposition intend to vote on it. The motion deplores the Government's record in police manpower. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State showed, that is a charge without substance. It is a complete distortion


of the Government's record. The motion deserves to be roundly defeated.
The Government's amendment points out that we affirm the need for adequate police manpower. But it makes clear that in all aspects of policies for the support of law and order and of the control of crime the Government's priority is far higher than that of our predecessors—a higher priority for police manpower and the police service, a higher priority for the probation service, and a higher priority of prison accommodation.
I deal with the question of our record concerning the manpower position of the police which is attacked in the motion. Let me repeat a figure which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave the House. It is that today for the first time ever, we have more than 100,000 policemen. Today we have 100,396 policemen. At the end of May 1970, just before the Government took office, there were 92,707. The record which the House is being asked to deplore is the record of an increase of 7,689 in the number of policemen during those three years. When one compares that record with the Labour Party's record and the size of the police force during the three preceding years the motion becomes even more ludicrous.
As the motion is, presumably, wide enough to include Scotland as well as England and Wales, I am entitled to point out that there has been an even greater increase in the size of forces in Scotland. In each of the last two years, 1971 and 1972, there was a higher increase than there was during the whole of the previous five years between 1966 and 1970.

Mr. Albert Roberts: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman dealing with the police force or with traffic wardens?

Mr. Carlisle: I am dealing with the increase in the police force. We have 47 police forces each one of which has increased in size since the Government took office. In all but six of those police forces the rate of increase has been higher in the last three years. In 41 out of 47 there has been a greater increase than there was in the previous three years. Whereas during the last three years every police force has

increased, there were in Scotland five forces and in England and Wales seven forces in which there had been a drop in the previous three years.
Added to that must be the additional use of civilians. The figure given by my right hon. Friend in relation to the Metropolitan area was correct. The difference between that figure and the figure mentioned is accounted for by traffic wardens. In that time 797 more civilians have been helping the police. We therefore have more policemen able to concentrate on police work.
It may be said by some that, although recruitment has improved greatly over the last three years, we are not going fast enough and still more should be done, but the Opposition could not possibly hold that position. That argument has been shot from under their feet by the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan)—who, not surprisingly, is not a signatory to the motion—when, at the end of 1967, as a result of his tenure of office at the Treasury he had, when he became Home Secretary, to impose a ceiling on police recruitment and on the extent to which police forces could expand.
The hon. Member for Hitchin (Mrs. Shirley Williams) said that it was deplorable that 17 out of 47 police forces were still 10 per cent. under strength. I believe that she was at the Home Office at the time when the decision was taken by the then Home Secretary that any force which was not more than 10 per cent. under establishment was not permitted any increase in its size. All that was permitted was an increase of 1 per cent. in the size of a police force provided that it was more than 10 per cent. under establishment. The reason given for that limit on recruitment by the Home Office was that the total strength of the forces had reached a point at which it was not necessary for unrestrained recruitment to continue. That was said by the then Government at a time when there were under 90,000 policemen. Yet they now have the nerve as an Opposition to censure us when we have in this country over 100,000 policemen.
When the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East was tackled about the reason for the brake on recruitment when police forces were still 17,000 under


strength, his answer was that it was not the size of the police force that was wrong but the size of the establishment. We were then told that the police were up to requirements even though they were below establishment.
One of the effects of the right hon. Gentleman's policies was deliberately to stop the expenditure on central advertising for recruitment to the police forces, which I am glad to say is now running at over £600,000 a year.

Mr. John Fraser: What about the situation in London?

Mr. Carlisle: I am coming on to London.

Mr. Fraser: The Minister is dodging the question.

Mr. Carlisle: I am not dodging anything. All forces, including those in London, are greater now than when we took office.
We have heard much about police pay. I remind the Labour Party that, compared to the time when we took office, the basic pay of a police officer has increased by 47 per cent. That surely is a recognition of an improvement in the situation of the police force.
In regard to the Metropolitan area, although I accept, as my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary accepted, that there are serious problems, and although we are concerned with the present situation in the Metropolitan Police force, I only need to remind the House of the steps which my right hon. Friend has already said are being taken.
Having dealt with the paucity of the Opposition's argument—[HON. MEMBERS: "What about London?"] I shall come back to London in a moment. In the last few moments of my speech I turn to the second half of our amendment, which welcomes the success of our policies not only in bringing about a substantial increase in the size of the police force but in combating crime.
The hon. Member for Norwood went on and on about the substantial and steady increase in crime. I do not know

whether he heard that part of my right hon. Friend's speech which emphasised that for the first time there are encouraging signs that the tide has turned. Not only has the rate in the growth of crime been going down over the last two years—and particularly during the last six months of last year—but now, for the first time in many years, the figures which my right hon. Friend hopes shortly to announce in relation to crimes in the first three months of this year will show a reduction in overall volume. My right hon. Friend said that last year 22 police forces had shown an actual reduction in crime against the situation in 1971, whereas in the first three months of this year 32 police forces out of 47 showed an actual reduction in crime. Reports which we have had from chief constables show that 36 out of 47 police forces have achieved an actual reduction in crime.

However serious the manpower position in the Metropolitan area, it must be said that among the areas which have reported to the Home Office reductions in crime is the Metropolitan area, whose figures are 4 per cent. down on the equivalent period last year. The same goes for Manchester and Salford, Liverpool, West Yorkshire, Birmingham, Lancashire, West Midlands and all the other forces which have been mentioned in this debate.

The Opposition have chosen to table what can only be described as a censorious motion. [HON. MEMBERS: "What about London?"] It is a hypocritical motion. It is tabled by a party whose record when in Government was hardly one of which they can be proud. It is a party which deliberately limited police expansion because it said there was no need to increase it further. Today we have 11,000 additional policemen and every police force is larger than it was when Labour were in power. That is the sort of record which the Opposition are asking the House to deplore, and I ask the House overwhelmingly to reject the motion.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 290, Noes 265.

Division No. 200.]
AYES
[10.0 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Atkins, Humphrey


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Awdry, Daniel


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Astor, John
Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)




Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Goodhart, Philip
Moate, Roger


Batsford, Brian
Gorst, John
Money, Ernie


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Gower, Raymond
Monks, Mrs. Connie


Bell, Ronald
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Monro, Hector


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Gray, Hamish
Montgomery, Fergus


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Green, Alan
More, Jasper


Benyon, W.
Grieve, Percy
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.


Biffen, John
Grylls, Michael
Morrison, Charles


Biggs-Davison, John
Gurden, Harold
Murton, Oscar


Blaker, Peter
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Nabarro, Sir Gerald


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Neave, Airey


Body, Richard
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Nicholls, Sir Harmar


Boscawen, Hn. Robert
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael


Bossom, Sir Clive
Hannam, John (Exeter)
Normanton, Tom


Bowden, Andrew
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Nott, John


Braine, Sir Bernard
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Onslow, Cranley


Bray, Ronald
Haselhurst, Alan
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally


Brewis, John
Hastings, Stephen
Osborn, John


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Havers, Michael
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Hawkins, Paul
Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Hay, John
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Hayhoe, Barney
Parkinson, Cecil


Bryan, Sir Paul
Hicks, Robert
Peel, John


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N &amp; M)
Higgins, Terence L.
Percival, Ian


Buck, Antony
Hiley, Joseph
Peyton, Rt. Hn. John


Bullus, Sir Eric
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Burden, F. A.
Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Pink, R. Bonner


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Holland, Philip
Pounder, Rafton


Campbell, Rt. Hn. G. (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Holt, Miss Mary
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Carlisle, Mark
Hordern, Peter
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Hornby, Richard
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.


Channon, Paul
Hornsby-Smith, Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Chapman, Sydney
Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis


Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Howell, David (Guildford)
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Chichester-Clark, R.
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Raison, Timothy


Churchill, W. S.
Hunt, John
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Iremonger, T. L.
Redmond, Robert


Clegg, Walter
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)


Cockeram, Eric
James, David
Rees, Peter (Dover)


Cooke, Robert
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Coombs, Derek
Jessel, Toby
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Cooper, A. E.
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Cordle, John
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Ridsdale, Julian


Corfield, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick
Jopling, Michael
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey


Cormack, Patrick
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)


Costain, A. P.
Kaberrv, Sir Donald
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Critchley, Julian
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Crouch, David
Kershaw, Anthony
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Crowder, F. P.
Kimball, Marcus
Rost, Peter


Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Russell, Sir Ronald


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
St. John-Stevas, Norman


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen. Jack
Kinsey, J. R.
Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.


Dean, Paul
Kirk, Peter
Scott, Nicholas


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Kitson, Timothy
Scott-Hopkins, James


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Dixon, Piers
Knox, David
Shelton, William (Clapham)


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Lamont, Norman
Shersby, Michael


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Lane, David
Simeons, Charles


Dykes, Hugh
Langford-Holt Sir John
Sinclair, Sir George


Eden, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Le Marchant, Spencer
Skeet, T. H. H.


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Lloyd,Rt. Hn.Geoffrey(Sut'nC'field)
Soref, Harold


Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Speed, Keith


Emery, Peter
Longden, Sir Gilbert
Spence, John


Fell, Anthony
Luce, [...]. N.
Sproat, Iain


Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Stainton, Keith


Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
MacArthur, Ian
Stanbrook, Ivor


Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
McCrindle, R. A.
Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)


Fookes, Miss Janet
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Stokes, John


Foster, Sir John
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Fowler, Norman
Maddan, Martin
Sutcliffe, John


Fox, Marcus
Madel, David
Tapsell, Peter


Fraser, John (Norwood)
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Fry, Peter
Marten, Neil
Taylor,Edward M. (G'gow,Cathcart)


Galbraith, Hn. T. G. D.
Mather, Carol
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Gardner, Edward
Maude, Angus
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)


Gibson-Watt, David
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald
Temple, John M.


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Mawby, Ray
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Glyn, Dr. Alan
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)



Miscampbell, Norman




Mitchell,Lt.-Col.C.(Aberdeenshire, W)








Tilney, John
Wall, Patrick
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Trafford, Dr. Anthony
Walters, Dennis
Woodnutt, Mark


Trew, Peter
Ward, Dame Irene
Worsley, Marcus


Tugendhat, Christopher
Warren, Kenneth
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin
White, Roger (Gravesend)
Younger, Hn. George


van Straubenzee, W. R.
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William



Vaughan, Dr. Gerard
Wiggin, Jerry
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Waddington, David
Wilkinson, John
Mr. Tim Fortescue and


Walder, David (Clitheroe)
Winterton, Nicholas
Mr. Bernard Weatherill.


Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick



Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard





NOES


Abse, Leo
Ellis, Tom
Lipton, Marcus


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
English, Michael
Lomas, Kenneth


Allen, Scholefield
Evans, Fred
Loughlin, Charles


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Ewing, Harry
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)


Armstrong, Ernest
Faulds, Andrew
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)


Ashley, Jack
Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson


Ashton, Joe
Fisher, Mrs. Doris (B'ham, Ladywood)
McBride, Neil


Atkinson, Norman
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
McCartney, Hugh


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
McElhone, Frank


Barnes, Michael
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
McGuire, Michael


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Foot, Michael
Mackenzie, Gregor


Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)
Forrester, John
Mackie, John


Baxter, William
Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford &amp; Stone)
Maclennan, Robert


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Freeson, Reginald
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Galpern, Sir Myer
McNamara, J. Kevin


Bidwell, Sydney
Gilbert, Dr. John
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)


Bishop, E. S.
Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Marks, Kenneth


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Gourley, Harry
Marquand, David


Booth, Albert
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Marsden, F.


Boothroyd, Miss B. (West Brom.)
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Marshall, Dr. Edmund


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy


Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Mayhew, Christopher


Bradley, Tom
Hatton, F.
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert


Broughton, Sir Alfred
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Mendelson, John


Brown, Robert C. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne, W.)
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Millan, Bruce


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Proven)
Hamling, William
Miller, Dr. M. S.


Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
Milne, Edward


Buchan, Norman
Hardy, Peter
Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Molloy, William


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Morgan, Elysian (Cardiganshire)


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Hattersley, Roy
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Cant, R. B.
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Carmichael, Neil
Hefter, Eric S.
Moyle, Roland


Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
Hooson, Emlyn
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Horam, John
Murray, Ronald King


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Houghton. Rt. Hn. Douglas
Oakes, Gordon


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Ogden, Eric


Cohen, Stanley
Huckfield, Leslie
O'Halloran, Michael


Concannon, J. D.
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
O'Malley, Brian


Conlan, Bernard
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Oram, Bert


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Orbach, Maurice


Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Orme, Stanley


Crawshaw, Richard
Irvine, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Oswald, Thomas


Cronin, John
Janner, Greville
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Jay Rt. Hn. Douglas
Padley, Walter


Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)
Jeger, Mrs. Lena
Paget, R. T.


Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Palmer, Arthur


Davidson, Arthur
John, Brynmor
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)
Pavitt, Laurie


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Pendry, Tom


Deakins, Eric
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Perry, Ernest G.


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.


Delargy, Hugh
Kaufman, Gerald
Prescott, John


Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Kelley, Richard
Price, William (Rugby)


Dempsey, James
Kerr, Russell
Probert, Arthur


Doig, Peter
Kinnock, Nell
Radice, Giles


Dormand, J. D.
Lambie, David
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)


Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Lamborn, Harry
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Lamond, James
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Driberg, Tom
Latham, Arthur
Richard, Ivor


Duffy, A. E. P.
Lawson, George
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Dunn, James A.
Leadbitter, Ted
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Dunnett, Jack
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Eadie, Alex
Leonard, Dick
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)


Edelman, Maurice
Lestor, Miss Joan
Roper, John


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Rose Paul B.



Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Rowlands, Ted







Sandelson, Neville
Stott, Roger (Westhoughton)
Weitzman, David


Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)
Strang, Gavin
Wellbeloved, James


Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N.E.)
Swain, Thomas
Whitehead, Phillip


Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Taverne, Dick
Whitlock, William


Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Sitters, James
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Silverman, Julius
Tinn, James
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Skinner, Dennis
Tomney, Frank
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Small, William
Tope, Graham
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Smith, John (Lanarkshire N.)
Torney, Tom
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Spearing, Nigel
Tuck, Raphael
Wilson, William (Coventry. S.)


Spriggs, Leslie
Urwin, T. W.
Woof, Robert


Stallard, A. W.
Varley, Eric G.



Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)
Wainwright, Edwin
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Mr. Donald Coleman and


Stoddart, David (Swindon)
Wallace, George
Mr. John Golding.


Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John
Watkins, David

Question accordingly agreed to.

Main Question, as amended, put: —

The House divided: Ayes 289, Noes 263.

Division No. 201.]
AYES
[10.12 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Crouch, David
Hayhoe, Barney


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Crowder, F. P.
Hicks, Robert


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)
Higgins, Terence L.


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Hiley, Joseph


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen. Jack
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)


Astor, John
Dean, Paul
Hill, S. James A.(Southampton, Test)


Atkins, Humphrey
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Holland, Philip


Awdry, Daniel
Dixon, Piers
Holt, Miss Mary


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Dodds-Parker, Sir Douglas
Hordern, Peter


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Hornby, Richard


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Dykes, Hugh
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia


Batsford, Brian
Eden, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Howe, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Howell, David (Guildford)


Bell, Ronald
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Hunt, John


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Emery, Peter
Hutchison, Michael Clark


Benyon, W.
Fell, Anthony
Iremonger, T. L.


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)


Biggs-Davison, John
Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hempstead)
James, David


Blaker, Peter
Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Jessel, Toby


Body, Richard
Fookes, Miss Janet
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)


Boscawen, Hn. Robert
Fortescue, Tim
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)


Bossom, Sir Clive
Foster, Sir John
Jopling, Michael


Bowden, Andrew
Fowler, Norman
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith


Braine, Sir Bernard
Fox, Marcus
Kaberry, Sir Donald


Bray, Ronald
Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford &amp; Stone)
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine


Brewis, John
Fry, Peter
Kershaw, Anthony


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Galbraith, Hn. T. G. D.
Kimball, Marcus


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Gardner, Edward
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Gibson-Watt, David
King, Tom (Bridgwater)


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Kinsey, J. R.


Bryan, Sir Paul
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Kirk, Peter


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N &amp; M)
Glyn, Dr. Alan
Kitson, Timothy


Buck, Antony
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Knight, Mrs. Jill


Bullus, Sir Eric
Goodhart, Philip
Knox, David


Burden, F. A.
Gorst, John
Lamont, Norman


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Gower, Raymond
Lane, David


Campbell, Rt. Hn. G. (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Carlisle, Mark
Gray, Hamish
Le Merchant, Spencer


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Green, Alan
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Channon, Paul
Grieve, Percy
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'nC'field)


Chapman, Sydney
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th Langstone)


Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Grylls, Michael
Longden, Sir Gilbert


Chichester-Clark, R.
Gurden, Harold
Luce, R. N.


Churchill, W. S.
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
McAdden, Sir Stephen


Clark, William (Surrey. E.)
Hall, John (Wycombe)
MacArthur, Ian


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
McCrindle, R. A.


Cockeram, Eric
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy


Cooke, Robert
Hannam, John (Exeter)
McNair-Wilson, Michael


Coombs, Derek
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)


Cooper, A. E.
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Maddan, Martin


Cordle, John
Haselhurst, Alan
Madel, David


Corfield, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick
Hastings, Stephen
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest


Cormack, Patrick
Havers, Sir Michael
Marten, Neil


Costain. A. P.
Hawkins, Paul
Mather, Carol


Critchley, Julian
Hay, John
Maude, Angus




Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald




Mawby, Ray
Quennell, Miss J. M.
Sutcliffe, John


Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Raison, Timothy
Tapsell, Peter


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Miscampbell, Norman
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)


Mitchell, Lt.-Col. C.(Aberdeenshire, W)
Redmond, Robert
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N. W.)


Moate, Roger
Rees, Peter (Dover)
Temple, John M.


Money, Ernie
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret


Monks, Mrs. Connie
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Monro, Hector
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Montgomery, Fergus
Ridsdale, Julian
Tilney, John


More, Jasper
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)
Trew, Peter


Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Tugendhat, Christopher


Morrison, Charles
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin


Murton, Oscar
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Rost, Peter
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Neave, Airey
Royle, Anthony
Waddington, David


Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Russell, Sir Ronald
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Noble, Rt. Hn Michael
St. John-Stevas, Norman
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)


Normanton, Tom
Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Nott, John
Scott, Nicholas
Wall, Patrick


Onslow, Cranley
Scott-Hopkins, James
Walters, Dennis


Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)
Ward, Dame Irene


Osborn, John
Shelton, William (Clapham)
Warren, Kenneth


Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)
Shersby, Michael
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)
Simeons, Charles
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Sinclair, Sir George
Wiggin, Jerry


Parkinson, Cecil
Skeet, T. H. H.
Wilkinson, John


Peel, Sir John
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)
Winterton, Nicholas


Percival, Ian
Soref, Harold
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Peyton, Rt. Hn. John
Speed, Keith
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Pike, Miss Mervyn
Spence, John
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Pink, R. Bonner
Sproat, Iain
Woodnutt, Mark


Pounder, Rafton
Stainton, Keith
Worsley, Marcus


Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Stanbrook, Ivor
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Price, David (Eastleigh)
Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)
Younger, Hn. George


Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Proudfoot, Wilfred
Stokes, John
Mr. Bernard Weatherill and


Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom
Mr. Walter Clegg.




NOES


Abse, Leo
Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Freeson, Reginald


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Galpern, Sir Myer


Allen, Scholefield
Crawshaw, Richard
Gilbert, Dr. John


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Cronin, John
Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)


Armstrong, Ernest
Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.


Ashley, Jack
Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)
Gourlay, Harry


Ashton, Joe
Davidson, Arthur
Grant, George (Morpeth)


Atkinson, Norman
Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)


Barnes, Michael
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)


Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)
Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)


Baxter, William
Deakins, Eric
Hamling, William


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Delargy, Hugh
Hardy, Peter


Bidwell, Sydney
Dell, Rt. He. Edmund
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)


Bishop, E. S.
Dempsey, James
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Doig, Peter
Hattersley, Roy


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Dormand, J. D.
Hatton, F.


Booth, Albert
Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis


Boothroyd, Miss B. (West Brom.)
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Hefter, Eric S.


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Driberg, Tom
Hooson, Emlyn


Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)
Duffy, A. E. P.
Horam, John


Bradley, Tom
Dunn, James A.
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas


Broughton, Sir Alfred
Dunnett, Jack
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)


Brown, Robert C. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne, W.)
Eadie, Alex
Huckfield, Leslie


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Edelman, Maurice
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)


Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Edwards, William (Merloneth)
Hughes, Mark (Durham)


Buchan, Norman
Ellis, Tom
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
English, Michael
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Evans, Fred
Irvine, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Ewing, Harry
Janner, Greville


Cant, R. B.
Faulds, Andrew
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas


Carmichael, Neil
Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.
Jeger, Mrs. Lena


Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
Fisher, Mrs. Doris (B'ham, Ladywood)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)


Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
John, Brynmor


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)


Cohen, Stanley
Foot, Michael
Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)


Concannon, J. D.
Forrester, John
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)


Conlan, Bernard
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)




Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)







Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Silverman, Julius


Kaufman, Gerald
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Skinner, Dennis


Kelley, Richard
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Small, William


Kerr, Russell
Moyle, Roland
Smith, John (Lanarkshire. N.)


Kinnock, Neil
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Spearing, Nigel


Lambie, David
Murray, Ronald King
Spriggs, Leslie


Lamborn, Harry
Oakes, Gordon
Stallard, A. W.


Lamond, James
Ogden, Eric
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)


Latham, Arthur
O'Halloran, Michael
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)


Lawson, George
O'Malley, Brian
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Leadbitter, Ted
Oram, Bert
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Orbach, Maurice
Stott, Roger (Westhoughton)


Leonard, Dick
Orme, Stanley
Strang, Gavin


Lestor, Miss Joan
Oswald, Thomas
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Padley, Walter
Swain, Thomas


Lipton, Marcus
Paget, R. T.
Taverns, Dick


Lomas, Kenneth
Palmer, Arthur
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Loughlin, Charles
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Parker, John (Dagenham)
Tomney, Frank


Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)
Tope, Graham


Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Pavitt, Laurie
Torney, Tom


McBride, Neil
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Tuck, Raphael


McCartney, Hugh
Pendry, Tom
Urwin, T. W.


McElhone, Frank
Perry, Ernest G.
Varley, Eric G.


McGuire, Michael
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.
Wainwright, Edwin


Machin, George
Prescott, John
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Mackenzie, Gregor
Price, William (Rugby)
Wallace, George


Mackie, John
Probert, Arthur
Watkins, David


Mackintosh, John P.
Radice, Giles
Weitzman, David


Maclennan, Robert
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)
Wellbeloved, James


McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


McNamara, J. Kevin
Rhodes, Geoffrey
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Richard, Ivor
Whitehead, Phillip


Melialieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Whitlock, William


Marks, Kenneth
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Marquand, David
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Marsden, F.
Roper, John
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Marshall, Dr Edmund
Rose Paul B.
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Rowlands, Ted
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Mayhew, Christopher
Sandelson, Neville
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Mendelson, John
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
Woof, Robert


Millan, Bruce
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)



Miller, Dr. M. S.
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N.E.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Milne, Edward
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Mr. John Golding and


Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)
Mr. Donald Coleman.


Molloy, William
Sillars, James



Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 56 (Third Reading), and agreed to.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House notes with concern the continuing rise in crime; affirms that the police should have adequate manpower to perform their duties; endorses Her Majesty's

Government's decision to give a higher priority over the last three years to policies for the support of law and order; and in particular welcomes the success of these policies in bringing about a substantial increase in the strength of the police service and further welcomes the present indications of their success in combating crime.

Orders of the Day — BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That the Government Trading Funds Bill and the Bangladesh Bill may be proceeded with at this day's Sitting, though opposed until any hour.—[Mr. Carlisle.]

Orders of the Day — ELECTIONS (WELSH FORMS)

10.24 p.m.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Mark Carlisle): I beg to move,
That the Elections (Welsh Forms) Regulations 1973, dated 9th June 1973, a copy of which was laid before this House on 20th June, be approved.
The regulations simply prescribe a revised version, partly in English and partly in Welsh—I understand that there are to be one or two comments about some of the spellings of Welsh words—of the canvass form, Form A, used in compiling the register of electors. The revised version was prescribed in the Representation of the People Regulations 1973, which the House approved on 26th February last. The revised form takes account of the changed basis of jury service introduced as a result of the Criminal Justice Act 1972, which extended liability to jury service to all electors between 18 and 65. A form based on the regulations will shortly be printed for use in Wales this year.
In view of the indication I have had from the hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Elystan Morgan), I am certainly prepared to look carefully into any points made about the Welsh translation and shall, of course, consult the Welsh Office if any changes need to be made. We shall try to make them in the forms printed for use in Wales this year.

10.25 p.m.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: The Opposition welcome these regulations which give official status to what is a very important Welsh translation of an official document. I think I am right in saying that this is the one hundred and ninety-second official translation which has been prescribed under the Act of 1967. I accept that there have been many scores of official translations beyond the pre-

scribed forms under Section 3 of the Act. Both Governments have reacted generously to the exhortation implicit in the 1967 Act that these translations should be maintained in a steady flow. That has been the case over the last six years.
There are two general questions I should like to touch on very briefly. First, although the volume of these translations has been considerable over the years, one is always conscious of the fact that there are some 20,000 official forms and documents in current use. What concerns many Members on both sides of the House is whether there is some strategic plan in choosing forms which would be likely to make the greatest impact on Welsh life if they were to be translated. There should be some strategic appreciation of the value of a document before a decision is made to translate it. For example, the impact that can be made by a single document may be much greater than the impact made by a totality of 300 other documents used only very seldom.
Secondly, we would like to know what more the Government propose to do to see to it that the fullest use is made of these forms. I understand that in some cases only a fraction of 1 per cent. of the forms is used in the Welsh language. It may be that in some circumstances the Welsh version is not given the same prominence as is the English version—it is not readily available and has to be asked for. We say that that is reprehensible and that such practices should be very closely looked into. By and large one appreciates that the Welsh forms are not on the whole popular, and I think that there is a duty not only on the Government but on Welsh people themselves to make the fullest use of these forms. There is something bizarre in a situation where scores of young people defy the courts and go to prison, very often egged on by respectable middle-aged men who would rather remain academic militants, and where at the same time perhaps only a few hundred people avail themselves of the Welsh forms when they are ultimately published.
We welcome this translation. We welcome it particularly because it is bilingual in that both languages are set out in the


same document. Despite the reservations which the Hughes Parry Committee had on this matter, we think this is the best way of conveying the Welsh language to those who do not speak it at present. Sometimes a form would be very bulky if it were to have both languages in it, and that might sometimes be inappropriate; but in most cases we think it appropriate to have the two.
We appreciate that this is an important official document since it brings home to the ordinary voter his legal obligation to be registered on the electoral roll. It is a chastening thought that, apart from those who choose not to vote at a parliamentary or local government election, there are, especially with an old register, millions of people who are disfranchised because their names do not appear on the roll.
I am sorry to have to conclude on a note of criticism. I readily acknowledge that, concerning nearly all the other forms that have been translated under the Act and the official translations, the Welsh that appears therein is of a very high standard. But this form is clearly an exception. It is bespattered with dozens of obvious grammatical mistakes and dozens of obvious and patent clerical errors. It is not that one is affecting a stance of scholastic pomposity. I have shown the form to a number of my colleagues who, like myself, have the Welsh language as a first language. It is obvious that this is a grotesque effort at translation.
I know that the Minister has good will towards the Welsh language and that he is anxious to do what is proper in this situation. We shall not divide the House on this matter. I ask the Minister, however, either to give an undertaking that, if the regulations are passed, the form will soon be replaced by another official form that will be a worthy and proper translation or, alternatively, to withhold them tonight and to bring forward a proper and accurate version very soon.
In a sense, bureaucratic language is the enemy of a living language in every country. But the language used in this form is arthritic and grotesque and completely distorts the Welsh out of all recognition.

10.31 p.m.

Mr. Goronwy Roberts: I strongly support what my hon. Friend the Member for Cardigan (Mr. Elystan Morgan) has said, both on the subject of producing bilingual forms in Wales and on the shortcomings of this particular document.
I do not think that all hon. Members of the House realise how widely used Welsh is as a medium of speech and writing in very many parts of Wales. I do not think most hon. Members realise that 23 out of 36 Members of Parliament for Welsh constituencies speak Welsh. That is a very high proportion having regard to the fact that Wales has been a country of two languages for some centuries. Like every Member representing one of the western parts of Wales, I habitually use the language in the politics and representation of my constituency. It is a rarity for me, for instance—as I am sure it is for my hon. Friend the Member for Cardigan and my hon. Friend the Member for Merioneth (Mr. William Edwards)—even in the heat of an election, to lapse into the tongue of our Anglo-Saxon friends.
Welsh is a modern language, fully capable of coping with all the demands of modern life; indeed, we have experience of that. Therefore, I commend the present Government, like the previous Government, for making progress in producing Welsh versions of official forms and directives. But I protest against the fact that this particular form, which is one of the most important, bearing as it does on the essential process of democracy, contains quite incredible mistakes of both grammar and idiom. The very first sentence is an imprecise and misleading variant of the English. For instance, the electoral registration officer, in English, "has to compile"; in Welsh he "is requested to compile." There is a difference of statutory undertaking implied in the first sentence of this fairly long form. One could go on and point to faulty grammar and spelling, but above all to an imprecision of statement. This is both a danger in the relationship between government and governed and something of a disservice to a modern language.
I ask the Minister of State, who I know is sympathetic to what is being


done for the Welsh language nowadays, to look very carefully not only at the form and presentation of this document but also into the arrangements for translation wherever that is done. It is unclear to my hon. Friends and myself what the arrangements are. Is there a reasonably strong unit of translation in the Welsh Office in Cardiff to which this very important work can be entrusted? Is it all that essential that whoever is asked or instructed to undertake this work should be a permanent civil servant?
I mean no disrespect to the excellent men and women who serve us in Wales. I have some experience of them as one who has held the post that the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Gibson-Watt) now holds. This is something special and I suggest that consideration should be given to putting this work out to people in Wales who are not civil servants. There are plenty of people who could give the Minister an idiomatic, precise and readable form without his having to overtax the already energetic and busy members of the Civil Service in Cardiff. Indeed, I could almost volunteer to give the Minister—not tonight, but in the course of the next day or so—an improved version in Welsh of this very important document.

10.36 p.m.

Mr. Carlisle: I reply by leave the the House. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Elystan Morgan) and to the right hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Goronwy Roberts) for what they have said. This is an important form because it goes into every household and must be filled in to enable qualified persons to vote. It is a bilingual form in that it will go out in English and Welsh to every household.
On behalf of my Department, I apologise to the right hon. Gentleman for the state of the translation into Welsh. I would not for one moment attempt to dispute with him if he said that the form was full of errors.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about the unit in Cardiff which does these translations on behalf of the Welsh Office. My hon. Friend the Minister of State, Welsh Office is present and will have heard what the right hon. Gentleman said. I am sure he is anxious to

ensure that the Welsh Office has a strong translation unit in Cardiff.
I assure the hon. Member for Cardigan that there is no need to withhold this document. The Act allows the form to be used with such variations as may be necessary or appropriate. It will have to be printed for the purpose of being sent to Wales. As I said at the beginning, in conjunction with the Welsh Office we will be willing to look at the translation again and I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Welsh Office would not take it in any way amiss if the right hon. Gentleman cared to give us the advantage of his knowledge on a more suitable wording for the form.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Elections (Welsh Forms) Regulations 1973, dated 9th June 1973, a copy of which was laid before this House on 20th June, be approved.

Orders of the Day — REDUNDANCY PAYMENTS (MERCHANT SEAMEN)

10.38 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Dudley Smith): I beg to move,
That the Redundancy Payments (Merchant Seamen Exclusion) Order 1973, a draft of which was laid before this House on 11th June, be approved.
I do not think that the order need detain the House for long. Its purpose is to prevent a possible anomaly effecting the entitlement of merchant seamen to payments under the Redundancy Payments Act 1965. It is non-controversial. I know that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) wishes to raise a number of points which I will endeavour to deal with later.
In 1968 an order was made after full consultation with the shipping industry to exclude merchant seamen from the statutory scheme where their service is covered by a voluntary redundancy payment scheme agreed by the industry. In one respect the criterion of exclusion in the 1968 order has been found to be too wide. Service was excluded if it was under articles requiring the observance of the National Maritime Board's terms and conditions of employment.
The articles have been used by some employers who are under no obligation to participate in the industry's redundancy payment scheme. The obligation to participate arises only where the employer is a member of an organisation affiliated to the National Maritime Board. Consequently some merchant seamen might be excluded from the statutory scheme even though their service was not covered by the industry's scheme. The board has asked for the order to be amended to close any possible gap and it seems to me a sensible step to take.
The order seeks to remedy this anomaly by excluding service under articles or, from 1st January last, under crew agreements applying the National Maritime Board's terms and conditions, but only where the service is in a ship covered by the employer's membership of an organisation affiliated to the National Maritime Board. This is a comparatively narrow point, but I agree that it is important because it affects a fair number of men who serve in the merchant service and it is right and proper that this should have been called to the attention of the Government of the day so that an adjustment may be made. I hope, therefore, that the House will feel able to approve the order.

10.42 p.m.

Mr. John Prescott: The Opposition do not intend to oppose the order but I take this opportunity to highlight some of the problems and seek a number of assurances and, perhaps, changes that the Minister might be prepared to consider. We do not want to delay the House but this matter is an important and a contentious one in the merchant service. We are here discussing yet another regulation concerning exclusion of the Merchant Shipping Acts only five or six years after the original order was made containing the defects outlined by the Minister.
The 1968 order was inadequate to achieve the objective set for it. As a result some British seamen on British-registered vessels were not paid anything when made redundant by the company employing them. The company, however, was able to recover from the State the contributions it had made towards the redundancy scheme. The company drew

the benefits yet the seamen were denied payment because of the exclusion order which was supposed to guarantee some form of payment.
This matter of redundancy benefits is highly controversial as is shown by the considerable struggle which has ensued between the trade unions and the owners about whether a special redundancy scheme should be provided to take account of the special circumstances of the industry. Clearly the original redundancy legislation to which the order was directed denied benefits to seamen primarily because of the circumstances of their occupation, which are that because they sign the articles of agreement, or, latterly, the crew agreement, they are employed for a period of less than two years, the minimum qualifying period for redundancy pay.
Some seamen—after as much as 20 or 30 years service—were unable to claim redundancy pay because they were returned to the merchant navy pool—what is known ashore as the Labour Exchange—and therefore while employment with that company had terminated they were considered to have been offered alternative employment by the pool labour system and their claim for redundancy pay was rejected.
These industrial issues created consternation, and led to both the unions and the companies asking for exemption from the Redundancy Payments Act. The Minister was very concerned with the Industrial Relations Act. I constantly argued that we were always considered in legislation to be exceptional to the legislation for ordinary workers and given special legislation, but when we pressed the Minister to exempt us from that Industrial Relations Act we were told that we were in the same position as every other worker. Tonight we are once again discussing one of the exemptions for the seamen as different from other industrial workers.
The 1968 order required that certain minimum criteria be observed before any Government could consider exclusion from the 1965 Act. My right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Spark-brook (Mr. Hattersley) laid down those criteria on 18th June 1968. They are the same criteria about which we have to satisfy ourselves when we consider


the order tonight. My right hon. Friend said:
There are obvious minimum criteria by which exclusion should be judged. The first requirement is that the employers have set up at considerable cost to themselves redundancy arrangements. The second is that the individual arrangements should eliminate claims on the general redundancy fund. Third, the benefits should be at least comparable to those paid by the scheme."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th June, 1968; Vol. 766, c. 1805.]
With the opportunity to have a second order, which is most unusual, we can judge, against those criteria, just how effective the original order was. Perhaps that could reflect why we have certain worries about the order. It was clearly shown on payments calculated to be paid to a man made redundant on 11 weeks a year employment that the arrangements was improved, and that that criterion was satisfied. But although there has been a decline of 30,000 in the number of seamen in the past decade only about 150 have been made redundant, and their redundancy has cost the industry about £100,000. The criterion about claims on the State fund has been satisfied to the hilt. There were no claims on the State fund.
On the third point, about the scheme being of considerable cost to the employers, the figures are unfortunately secret and very difficult to obtain. I hope that the Minister will consider changing that. But what evidence we have, some of it taken from the yearly report to the House of the redundancy fund, it appears that, taking into account the money refunded to the industry under the order the industry benefited. Refunds not only in respect of seamen are recorded but also of dockers, share fishermen and others. There are other hon. Members from the port that I represent who concern themselves with fishing matters, especially conditions of employment, which I leave to them, perhaps wisely. I note that the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) is not here tonight to further their interests.
It has been estimated that the companies have been saving over £250,000 a year in returned contributions up to 1971 as a result of having their own scheme. That is almost 90 per cent. of the contributions they have been paying to the State. Consequently, 10 per cent. had been used for paying redundancy benefits up to 1971.
The matter has caused considerable concern to the trade unions involved. If it is said that all industry must pay towards a social benefit, a redundancy fund, that fund is used for good social purpose. If it cannot because of the circumstances of the industry be granted to seamen for the reasons which I have given, clearly that money should be used for some other means to meet the differences which exist in the system so that money raised for social purposes is used for social ends.
Perhaps consideration of sick pay systems which the industry has now adopted is an example. The shipping industry has one of the highest death rates due to occupational deaths and one of the highest accident records in the country. The higher-than-shore average of people who die from diseases, accidents or who suffer from mental illness illustrates the stresses which the lads face who go away to sea. Therefore, we need considerably more data about the cash position in order to press for further financial provision to supplement the industry's new medical severance scheme.
It is important to know how much the industry saves so that we can legitimately argue that the money should be used in other directions. In passing, I mention that we have health and insurance contributions for owners who employ foreign seamen, but the owners are able to recoup those contributions. That makes foreign labour cheaper and it is more difficult for British labour to get jobs when foreign labour is made that much cheaper by payment of less social contributions.
It is the responsibility of the Department, which is concerned with the criteria on which this legislation is based, to ensure that the industry uses social contributions to social ends and that the money is not just put back into the kitty
It is relevant to quote the evidence given by the Department to the Statutory Instruments Committee when it was considering the Redundancy Payments (Exclusion of Merchant Seamen) Order, 1973. In evidence it was said:
Indeed, that formulation in the 1968 Order was taken from the text of the industry's own redundancy scheme, and at that time had the approval of the industry; and those instructing me were assured by the industry at that


time that that was a satisfactory and reasonably watertight formulation of the position.
All too easily the industrial view is accepted. I should like to see the Department be a little more vigilant about some of the views and estimates given to it. This measure considerably tightens up one of the problems which arises when seamen on British ships are not covered by the scheme and if the owners are not a member of the National Maritime Board. That situation is covered by the new Redundancy Payments Order. The order makes it clear that if owners are not members of the National Maritime Board they shall belong to the State scheme. Those companies must pay their contributions to the State scheme. No one will be able to find a loophole as a result of the position being considerably tightened.
There are some further points which are causing some concern. There are seamen who will now come in the State scheme. If they are not under the industry's National Maritime Board's scheme they will be available to go into the State scheme. Is the Minister able to give us an idea how many seamen will be exempt from the board's scheme, or, to put the other side of the equation, how many seamen will be able to go into the State scheme? We must bear in mind that even if a company contributes to the board's scheme, if the company's vessel is below 200 tons it need pay no contribution.
Secondly, there is a problem about articles for those lads in the State scheme. Crew agreements last three or six months and it will now not be possible to meet the original requirement of the two-year accumulated period before they can become a claimant on the redundancy fund. It is possible that a company, facing the possibility of paying its 50 per cent. into the redundancy fund, could end the articles just before the redundancy period and opt out of its responsibility to paying in money.
If the man is to pursue his claim for unfair dismissal, as the Minister knows better than most because he drafted most of the laws on this matter, he must for two years have served in that employment. So he will be denied the right under the Industrial Relations Act to

secure redress. The company indeed has a financial incentive to get rid of the man.
Thirdly, I understand that the appeals tribunal requires a seaman, before he makes a redundancy claim, to be employed for two years in his employment. This raises an issue of contract law. If the contract or article or crew agreement is freely entered into between employer and employee and at the end of a set period—say, six months—the articles automatically finish, is the employer forced to take back the man on the ship?
Finally, I wish to raise an important point involving the present industry scheme. It is relevant to the order which, unfortunately, does not correct it. One of the rights of the Act dealing with the question of redundancy concerns not only the benefits conferred but the guarantee of legal rights. If a man's claim for redundancy is turned down, he can go through various stages of appeal.
A case has been brought to my attention about which I know the industry is concerned. I am sure that something will be done about it. It is the responsibility of the Department to ensure that the legal right in question is passed into the industry scheme. The case concerns a constituent, not of mine, but of my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Mr. Harold Wilson). I shall not go into the details, but I will send all the papers to the Minister so that he can make a proper assessment. However, everything I propose to say about the case is correct and I do not want to bore the House with the details.
The man in question, Mr. Noel McCormack, was employed on a vessel as a baker. In the merchant shipping service a baker is what we call an Appendix A man. He is not a registered seaman. People such as doctors, nurses, pursers and bakers are generally called Appendix A people; they are employees of the company. Mr. McCormack was employed by a passenger company which closed down its ships, and he was made redundant.
It is important to realise that if a seamen lives not in a port such as Liverpool but outside it he has to report to his employment exchange and not to the pool, which does the job on behalf of the exchange of allocating seamen to ships and dealing with unemployment


benefit. Mr. McCormack reported to the employment exchange. He was made redundant in April 1970, and he remained unemployed until February 1971. He made a claim in November 1971 for redundancy pay. He failed to qualify under the industry scheme because he did not satisfy the criterion, namely, he did not for 12 weeks report himself available for work.
The labour exchange did not, as it has admitted, inform the pool. That was the mistake of the Department of Employment official and not of Mr. McCormack. That is a legal point which will have to be considered. He did not claim within 12 months, so he failed to qualify under the industry scheme. He appealed to the tribunal under the 1965 Act and his case was considered in London in February 1973. His appeal failed because the tribunal said that as he was a merchant seaman he was excluded from the provisions of the Act dealing with redundancy. Therefore, the industry scheme of appeal is less fair and the guarantees for the justification of the exclusion order have not been satisfied.
The industry disallowed this man. He appealed again to the higher authority and he was further disallowed. The industry scheme requires that if the employer and the trade union disagree about a redundancy claim the case goes to the National Maritime Board. If there is still disagreement the parties can come to the Department and be heard by a tribunal. However, if the trade union and the owners agree, the man is denied all effective right to go to a tribunal. If there is a point of law at issue, as in this case—namely, is the responsibility on the Department of Employment if it fails to notify the pool that the man was available for work in compliance with the Act?—it should be considered by a lawyer.
I hope that the Minister will press the industry to include this alternative appeal system, and ensure that seamen are guaranteed those minimum requirements laid down in the 1965 Redundancy Act in regard to appeal conditions.
The order will not create any opposition, but I have raised several doubts. I ask the Minister to consider the matters I have mentioned and approach the industry to make sure that those doubts on

the appeals system are satisfied. Secondly, will he consider the redundancy claims of the non-State seamen—those who are no longer under the exclusion order and are excluded by the two-year requirements on unfair dismissal and redundancy. Thirdly, will he consider breaking down the redundancy fund into separate categories for dockers, share fishermen and seamen, so that an assessment can be made of the amount of money given back to the industry out of the appeals?

11.2 p.m.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: I wish to draw to the Under-Secretary of State's attention some provisions of the order which exclude fishermen. Fishermen in Hull are prevented from receiving benefit either under the Redundancy Payments Act or under the Contracts of Employment Act. The order specifically exempts fishermen. I contend that orders of this nature exempting fishermen from the benefits of the Redundancy Payments Act should not be brought before the House.
I have taken up this matter in correspondence with the Minister of State. He summarised the position as follows:
The difficulty about the casual nature of employment in the industry is that statutory payments are calculated on, among other things, the length of reckonable service with the employer … this usually means service with the last employer before redundancy dismissal; service with more than one employer can, however, be aggregated where there has been a transfer of the business or successive employing companies are ' associated' within the meaning of the Act.
The Minister went on to explain how it was possible for parts of an industry or a whole industry which by reason of its nature are not covered by the Act to bring forward a scheme. We are discussing the provisions of such a scheme as it applies to merchant seamen.
A fisherman signs articles—a crew agreement—and at the end of his voyage he signs off. He might have a continuous crew agreement in the sense that he will make a number of trips. At the end he will sign off, have his rest and then try to get another vessel. It might well be that he goes on to the same trawler as he had been on before, or to a different trawler with a different owner. The overall effect is the same—that he does


not have contiuous or reckonable service within the meaning of the Act.
This is particularly difficult for fishermen, for a number of reasons. While I do not dispute with my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) the arduous nature of the ordinary merchant seaman's job, I point out that the fisherman's job, working on open decks in gale force weather, perhaps harassed, although fortunately not at present, by Icelandic gunboats, having to bring gear aboard and to fish out, is difficult, dangerous, and arduous. There is a great number of accidents. We all remember with sadness the type of tragedy which occurred a number of years ago. Fortunately, through the work of both parties and both sides of the industry, they have averted those. Nevertheless, this is a dangerous job, where men work long hours and have a considerable number of accidents.
The overall result is that one may reach 40 or 45, and because of the casual nature of the industry not find employment again on trawlers. Because of the arduousness of the job, skippers looking for crews seek to get men from the register who are young or youngish, or middle-aged with a lot of experience. Once they are past 40 or 45, it is difficult for ordinary deck hands to get continuous employment on trawlers. One has only to look at unemployment in the fishing industry to realise that.
A man comes to a position in middle age where he has no regularity of employment and should, in all fairness, be declared redundant, but because there is no redundancy scheme in the fishing industry, he is excluded from proper provision for compensation for loss of employment and loss of wages—admittedy good wages at the moment but wages which have to be worked for very hard.
The Under-Secretary is probably aware that in a recent application for a wages increase by the Transport and General Workers' Union, my own union, to the Hull Fishing Vessel Owners Association, the union has asked for decasualisation of the industry and a proper system of redundancy payments, with appropriate protection, similar to that given to people in shore-based industry under the Contracts of Employment Act.
It may be, because of the nature of the negotiations, that it will be impossible to come to a proper agreement in the industry, and I therefore ask the Minister to give an undertaking, should the industry fail to come to an agreement on this terrible anomaly and the grave injustice done to fishermen on Humberside and everywhere else where there are distant and middle water vessels, that the Department will consider trying to bring the two sides together to work out a proper scheme to give social justice to the fishermen of our country.

11.10 p.m.

Mr. Dudley Smith: We have had two interesting contributions, including the usual erudite speech on Merchant Navy matters from the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott). I do not always agree with him, but he knows the subject very well and speaks fluently. He posed a number of questions, some of which I shall try to answer. If I do not cover them all, I hope he will excuse me. On other points I shall check up and be in touch with him. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman is not opposing the order and that he agrees that it is a great improvement. I agree that the 1968 order had its anomalies. I make no political point on this, but merely say that it was passed by a Labour Administration. All Governments and officials make mistakes from time to time. There was a loophole there which was not foreseen. This exemption will undoubtedly be helpful to those who work in the industry.
I have gone carefully into this matter in the last few days and I am of the opinion that the scheme is a very good and worth while one for the industry. Although it can be said that we always want something better, I think that by and large what has been done is appreciated.
One of the most important points made by the hon. Gentleman is related to the difficulty over the appeals procedure. Let me try to set the scene. My right hon. Friend's power under Section 16 of the Redundancy Payments Act to prescribe employments by order from the statutory scheme is a general power. Section 16 does not lay down any conditions on which he may exercise it, except the approval of the exclusion order


by both Houses of Parliament. It is not necessary that there should be a voluntary scheme or that, if there is a scheme, it should include any particular provisions.
The requirement mentioned by the hon. Gentleman as to rights of appeal applies to schemes exempted under Section 11 of the Act. There is nothing in Section 16 to prevent exclusion on account of a voluntary scheme agreed by an industry and suited to its needs, as in the case of the merchant seamen. The scheme agreed by the industry provides for appeal to a sub-committee of the National Maritime Board in cases of dispute about entitlement to redundancy payments under that scheme. If the subcommittee is not able to reach agreement, the services of the industrial tribunals are available by agreement with the National Maritime Board to assist in a non-statutory capacity. It is true that if the sub-committee reaches agreement, the seamen at present have no automatic right of appeal to an independent tribunal or arbitrator outside the industry. I understand that the National Maritime Board is considering how this right might be given. My Department will be pleased to advise the National Maritime Board on this if it so wishes, and to discuss the various points raised by the hon. Gentleman on appeals procedure. I give an undertaking that I shall follow this up to see that this is done. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the point is well taken.
The hon. Gentleman's second point, on which he placed a great deal of emphasis, related to employment with different non-affiliated employers. We are not attempting in the order, which is fairly restricted, to deal with all the problems that arise from conditions of employment in the merchant shipping industry. There are many problems and the hon. Gentleman has spotlighted some of them. The aim of the order is to remedy an anomaly which was not seen before when the 1968 exclusion order was made as between existing statutory and voluntary redundancy payments schemes. There are no powers in the Act by which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State can on his own initiative treat employment with separate employers as aggregated for the purpose of redundancy payments. On this point merchant

seamen are only in the same position as workers in any employment ashore.
I accept that there is a tendency in merchant shipping for people to have a shorter-term engagement compared with work on shore. Employment with separate employers can be aggregated only if a scheme of redundancy payments is agreed in an industry and provides for aggregation, as does the National Maritime Board's scheme. The employment covered by the scheme can then be excluded from the statutory scheme under Section 16 of the Act or exempted under Section 11. We shall always be pleased to consider any proposals that may be made for schemes in the different sections of the industry that are outside the scope of the National Maritime Board's scheme. We shall treat with the utmost seriousness any proposals that may be made to us about it.
That leads me to the important point on unfair dismissal. The hon. Gentleman invested me with powers rather above myself by saying that I drafted most of the Industrial Relations Act. I began to understand some parts of it during our discussions on the Bill, but I am not a lawyer. Although it is an admirable Act, I believe that certainly piloting it through the House did require a great deal of legal knowledge. I do not intend to get controversial, because the debate has been on a reasonably high level so far.
I think the House will agree that one of the big successes of the Industrial Relations Act was the part dealing with unfair dismissal. It is true that where the articles of contract last less than two years there is no entitlement to appeal against unfair dismissal. But the Government—this is nothing new; I have mentioned it in speeches—are open to suggestions for amending the Act, and they have specifically under review the two-year period of qualification for appeal to an industrial tribunal against unfair dismissal.
The hon. Gentleman probably knows, as he was an active participant in our debates, that one of the main reasons for this two-year qualification was a feeling that there might be a sudden rush of cases. The two-year period was to allow those responsible time to get properly


assembled and to deal with those cases. Therefore, it was felt that there should be some time inhibition to begin with. Again, that can be looked at, and I am sure that it will be considered.
The Government are aware of the feelings, which are not confined purely to this industry, about reduction of the qualifying period. I cannot anticipate events, but I should think that it is a likely bet that in due course this period will be reduced.
I cannot give the hon. Gentleman any exact figures about the numbers of merchant seamen who are covered or not covered by the order. However, I will check on this matter and get in touch with him if I can obtain the information. I understand that the National Maritime Board has no figures for the numbers of vessels outside the scope of the industry's scheme. However, we can look into this matter further. I will also look into the possibility of publishing the figures.
The hon. Gentleman chided the Government about being more vigilant in their approach to representations and blandishments from the industry and not merely accepting what is given. I think that we are pretty testy sometimes. We like to examine these matters fairly closely. We are not easily misled. The hon. Gentleman may feel that we sometimes accept these matters too easily when they come from his industry. He has now put us on our guard and we shall pay more heed, if we do not already, to the representations that we sometimes get from sections of the industry.
I listened with interest to the speech by the hon. Memeber for Kingston upon Hull, North, who always speaks with great knowledge of the fishing industry. Although fishermen are outside the scope of the order, as he knows, it was perfectly fair for him to raise the matter that he did because it is a concomitant problem. However, in this instance we are specifically dealing with merchant seamen and no other particular body. I have taken note of what the hon. Gentleman has said. Share fishermen are exempt from the Redundancy Payments Act. This is a big and important industry, as we know only too well from recent events that have been taking place particularly from the hon. Gentleman's home port. There are

difficulties in delineation in the fishing industry, as my hon. Friend the Minister of State said in that fairly long letter that he sent to the hon. Gentleman earlier this year. Difficulties are made to be overcome, and I agree that there may be anomalies which should be looked at with care. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that I cannot give a commitment on this, but I undertake to look closely at it and perhaps I can write to the hon. Gentleman or have a further word with him about it in due course.

Dame Irene Ward: Reference has been made to the fishermen of Hull, but this is important to the fishermen on the Tyne, so I, too, should like a letter.

Mr. Smith: I am always glad to oblige my hon. Friend. No one is more assiduous than she is in looking after the interests of those who work off and on the coast. Although I was addressing my remarks to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North I was including all fishermen because this is a large and important industry.
This is a small but somewhat technical order. It may present problems for those who have not studied the matter, but it points in the right direction. I appreciate the approach that the Opposition have adopted. The order has already passed through another place, and there is no further inhibition upon it. In those circumstances, I hope that it will help those who work in this industry.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Redundancy Payments (Merchant Seamen Exclusion) Order 1973, a draft of which was laid before this House on 11th June, be approved.

Orders of the Day — BANGLADESH BILL

As amended (in the Standing Committee) considered.

Orders of the Day — Schedule

MODIFICATIONS OF ENACTMENTS

11.21 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Anthony Boyle): I beg to move


Amendment No. 1, in page 4, line 10, leave out from 'before' to 'it' in line 11 and insert '1st September 1974'.
Under the provisions of the Companies Acts mentioned in paragraph 10(1) of the schedule certain British companies may keep in another Commonwealth country a register of shareholders resident in that country. The sub-paragraph as it now stands provides that, during a period ending six months after the Bill is passed, a register kept in Bangladesh shall not be treated as improperly kept by reason only that it includes shareholders resident in Pakistan.
The Pakistan Bill as introduced in the House contained a corresponding provision giving a period of grace regarding the inclusion on a register kept in Pakistan of shareholders resident in Bangladesh, and the period would likewise have ended six months after the passing of the Pakistan Bill. But, as the House knows, the Government gave further consideration to that provision in the light of representations made when the Bill was before the Standing Committee and an amendment was put down which the House accepted on Report last night. The result of that amendment is that the period of grace under the corresponding provision of the Pakistan Bill ends on 1st September 1974.
The simple purpose of the amendment now put forward is to increase similarly the period of grace allowed by this provision of the Bangladesh Bill by providing that it will end on the same date, namely, 1st September 1974. I accordingly ask the House to approve this small amendment.
With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House I should like to say a few words before the Bangladesh Bill leaves this House. Last night the House dealt with what was basically a sad occasion, the Third Reading of the Pakistan Bill, made necessary by Pakistan's decision to leave the Commonwealth. Our task tonight is a happier one: to send on its way a Bill which takes account of Bangladesh having joined the Commonwealth as an independent sovereign State.
Bangladesh was born in blood and fire. The events of 1971 brought tragedy to the sub-continent and deep distress to the many people in this country who

take an interest in the area and wish to see it prosper. But this is all in the past; nothing can be more sterile than recrimination and the attempt to apportion blame. I am sure the whole House will wish to join me in expressing the hope that a peaceful settlement may soon be achieved in the sub-continent and that all the three countries there, India, Pakistan and Bangladesh, may be able to live together in peace, friendship and harmony. We for our part wish to have friendly relations with all three countries.
But this Bill deals not only with Britain's relations with Bangladesh but also with the status of Bangladesh citizens in this country. Over the years a large number of people from Bangladesh have come to live in this country and have made a valuable contribution to our economic and cultural life. Hitherto they have enjoyed Commonwealth citizenship in this country only by virtue of the fact that they have remained citizens of Pakistan. With the passage of this Bill they will acquire the status of Commonwealth citizenship on the basis of their citizenship of Bangladesh.
I should, therefore, like to conclude by expressing to the State of Bangladesh, and to the citizens of Bangladesh in this country, our very best wishes for a peaceful and prosperous future.

Amendment agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

ADJOURNMENT

Motion made and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Murton.]

MR. STANLEY LYNCH

11.25 p.m.

Mr. Alan Haselhurst: During my three years as a Member of this House no case has caused me more impatience and anger than that of Mr. Stanley Lynch of Middleton. All hon. Members feel a concern for maintaining the employment of all citizens but a special concern to ensure that


people who are in some way disabled should not face extra penalties in obtaining employment.
Mr. Lynch is aged 46 and lives with his wife and five children in a Manchester Corporation-owned house on the Langley overspill estate at Middleton. He is a registered disabled person who suffers from agoraphobia, and cannot, therefore, work away from home. The evidence for this comes, first, from a social worker, who said in a recent report:
Mr. Lynch suffers from a chronic agoraphobic state, which prevents him going out. He is able to walk in the vicinity of his home only when accompanied and has on several occasions ' collapsed ' in the street.
His general practitioner, Dr. Claiman, has issued a certificate. The most recent that I have is dated 6th July 1973. It states:
This is to certify that Mr. S. Lynch of … Middleton is suffering from chronic phobia of being transported by mechanical means. He is therefore obliged to seek such employment which he can carry out at home, thus obviating the need to travel.
So there is no doubt that Mr. Lynch is a genuinely disabled person and is registered as such.
Mr. Lynch was formerly a landscape gardener until, when the time came that his disability was finally confirmed, he had to find an alternative job. He took a postal draughtsman's course and exhausted his capital on his studies and the equipment necessary to pursue his occupation. So far as I know, he is a competent draughtsman. Certainly, three years ago, a firm in Middleton was prepared to give him work that he could do at home and he was kept quite busy.
He carried on in this way for two years. Then, in conversation with the disablement resettlement officer—this is where the Department of Employment became involved in Mr. Lynch's story—the full facts of his employment came to light. The officer suggested that, to put matters on a correct footing, Mr. Lynch should apply to Manchester Corporation housing department for permission to continue his work at home. He applied, and permission was refused. He then had to cease work and has since had to rely on social security benefits.
In order to understand why I am making this appeal to the Department, we

must first consider the full nature of Mr. Lynch's problem. We should first consider the attitude of Manchester Corporation, since I believe that it is at the heart of the problem. The corporation stubbornly refused to allow Mr. Lynch to work at home. It has maintained this refusal over about two years. Nor will it sanction a building in his garden in which he could keep and use his drawing equipment.
Again, had the corporation allowed him in 1971 to proceed with the purchase of his house there would today be no problem. Unfortunately, with the change of political control in Manchester Corporation, Mr. Lynch's hopes of being able to purchase his home were dashed.
To add refinement to Manchester Corporation's insensitive treatment of my constituent, the corporation suggested at one time last year a transfer to a larger house so that he would have improved conditions for his work. Mr. Lynch did not wish to move because he quite liked his present house, adjacent to Middeton Corporation allotments on which he was able to potter around.
When I pressed Manchester Corporation about whether it would give official permission to Mr. Lynch to work if he acceded to the suggestion that he should remove to another house, the corporation said it would not give permission anyway. I am forced to the conclusion that there is total insensitivity on Manchester Corporation's part. Moreover I have a rather nasty feeling that it would understand the disablement of a man with no legs but suspect whether agoraphobia was a true disablement. I suggest that it should be a matter of real concern for the Department of Employment that such ignorance and callousness towards a disabled person should exist in a public authority.
Manchester Corporation says that it is reviewing the whole question of businesesses being conducted from council houses and it implies that there are complications arising out of the Housing Finance Act 1972. This is running away from what is really at issue. Here is a man who wants to work, who is capable of doing a particular type of work, and who is prevented from doing so by some bureaucratic ruling. Mr. Lynch does not want to advertise; nor is he in search of business profits. He wants to be able


to earn a living wage which will lessen if not remove his dependence on social security benefits.
I must say that I fail to see how Manchester Corporation reconciles its decision in Mr. Lynch's case when so many other tenants on the same estate are running businesses which include advertising and their being called upon by people. The business people include driving instructors, plumbers, industrial machinists and window cleaners, all of whom keep their tools of their trades at home but cause no difficulty or inconvenience, as there would be no difficulty or inconvenience in Mr. Lynch's case were he allowed to work at home.
By constrast with the attitude of Manchester Corporation, Middleton Corporation has been very much more reasonable. Mr. Lynch, when he was working at home for two years before the disablement resettlement officer talked to him, had a shed in the garden. Middleton Corporation, as planning authority, had to condemn this as a fire risk but was prepared to give planning permission for an extension to be made so that Mr. Lynch could have somewhere to work. It is interesting to note the language in which this permission was given:
The proposed development would be unacceptable in a residential area. However, the applicant, due to personal circumstances, is unable to undertake any form of employment other than from home and this application is permitted for this reason.
That sort of flexibility should characterise the approach of any responsible authority in dealing with a case like that of Mr. Lynch. The local social services department has been endeavouring to help Mr. Lynch and is, indeed, sympathetic to him.
There are two other disadvantages suffered by Mr. Lynch. I am concerned about his pension entitlement. He has already claimed unsuccessfully for certain credits to be made on his contribution record and has been unsuccessful according to the rules which apply. I should like to know from my hon. Friend the Minister whether he can say whether Mr. Lynch's ultimate pension has already been put at a disadvantage by what has happened and whether it can be worsened still further if Mr. Lynch is not permitted to work in the near future.
The second problem for Mr. Lynch is what the neighbours may say of him. There is liable to be gossip in certain

quarters—for example, "Mr. Lynch seems to be an able-bodied person. Therefore, he cannot really be unable to work." Since attention was drawn in the Press to the fact that this debate was to take place this evening, I have received an anonymous letter, from which I should like to quote. It states:
Off Mr. Stanley Lynch I wish you had your facts right, because I the writer of this letter happens to know what I am saying this man is a con man he can tell a good story he has never worked in his life he doesn't know what work is …
Dr. Claiman may be can put you in the picture, he knows his type. He been getting away without paying stamp or tax for years. It is about time somebody caught up with him
If this sort of filth is peddled totally in contravention of the known facts and the statement of Mr. Lynch's general practitioner, one can understand the hurt and the discomfort that can can come to Mr. Lynch and his family by his inability to be able to do what he wishes to do
All I have said adds up in my view to an absolutely intolerable state of affairs, and I seek the help of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary in trying to bring it to an end. This must surely be a matter of concern to him. There must be an obligation on his Department to assist Mr. Lynch, a registered disabled person, so that he may maintain his independence and provide for his family to the best of his ability.
I ask my hon. Friend whether his Department can initiate discussions at the highest level with all interested bodies to help to resolve this personal problem. It is a monstrous situation which cannot be allowed to continue indefinitely. Humanity demands that Mr. Lynch be given back his dignity.

11.37 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Dudley Smith): My hon. Friend the Member for Middleton and Prestwich (Mr. Haselhurst) has been most diligent in his endeavours on behalf of his constituent in the best possible traditions of this House, and he has spoken of the case tonight with understanding and compassion and a good deal of vigour.
I fully sympathise with the dilemma in which Mr. Lynch finds himself. I knew this case before in a slight way. As a result of my hon. Friend's notification


that he was applying for this Adjournment debate I have inquired fully into it, and I shall address myself to some of its details. I shall put forward some proposals which, I hope, will help my hon. Friend.
In dealing, however, with our efforts on behalf of my hon. Friend's constituent, I have to touch on matters which are not directly the concern of my Department, such as questions of planning policy and, more especially, policies in connection with the use of private houses for business purposes, to which my hon. Friend referred. The debate has hinged round these issues, which of course are primarily for my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.
It may be helpful if I begin by reviewing briefly my Department's involvement and concern in this matter. Our local officers have been in touch over a number of years with Mr. Lynch, but some two years ago we were asked to assist him in setting up business on his own account. This entailed drawing office work at home. As is known, the nature of his disability makes it unlikely that he would be able to work away from home at any time, and clearly it was a case where we needed to examine my Department's scheme for helping the severely disabled to take up business on their own account.
A visit by one of our officers showed that there were safety hazards in the building which must be used by Mr. Lynch. At the same time we advised him that if he was going to work from home, he ought to be satisfied that his landlord—in this case, as my hon. Friend said, the Manchester Corporation—would permit him to do so from what is, of course, rented council property. I submit that this was hardly negative advice, although I know that the gentleman is inclined to blame us for it and I thought that I detected a note of criticism from my hon. Friend. I may add that our officers were totally sympathetic. Indeed, they were impressed by the quality of Mr. Lynch's work and undertook to try to find additional work for him so that he could carry it on at home.
We were not in a position to go ahead with helping him to set up business on

his own account while there were doubts about whether it could be carried on in the premises in question and whether subsequently adaptations could be sanctioned for the property.
I understand that Mr. Lynch was unwilling to apply for a larger council house, which I gather was on offer and which might have given him extra room. At a later stage he decided that a building on his allotment would meet his purposes and insisted that it was the duty of our officers to approach the allotment owners—in this case Middleton Corporation—and obtain the necessary planning permission for him. Our officers made the corporation aware of these proposals, but understandably the corporation asked for a personal approach from Mr. Lynch.
I move on to March last year, at which point my hon. Friend wrote to us, making it clear that he had had correspondence with the Manchester Corporation and asking for my Department's help. We decided, therefore, that what was needed was for someone from the Middleton Corporation to visit Mr. Lynch at home with one of our officers to advise what action he should take over his proposal for providing a workshop at his home. Our officers thought that it was possible that a personal approach might move the situation forward, and indeed took with them planning application forms to his home.
The application for a building on the allotment for business premises was not granted on the grounds, I understand, that the land was to be used only for horticultural purposes.
This brings me to the central point—the use of rented houses for business purposes. My hon. Friend has pointed out that the Manchester Corporation, in its capacity as landlord, is unwilling to permit council property to be used as business premises. My understanding is that this is not because it is unsympathetic in this case—far from it, for it recognises that a severely disabled man is involved. But there is a question of policy which the corporation has to resolve. My information is that Mr. Lynch is now well aware of the dilemma of the corporation.
Let me emphasise that these are not questions for my Department. They fall


more to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment—although on matters of housing management and control he has no direct powers to intervene. On the question of the use of council property for business purposes he has published no advice, but I understand that if any local authority were to consult my right hon. Friend, his Department would be ready to pass on what it knows of practice throughout the country on this question.
I therefore turn to the functions of the Department of Employment, which derive from the Disablement Employment Acts of 1944 and 1958. Our rôle is to resettle disabled people by helping them to find suitable employment in open industry or in sheltered employment. In appropriate cases our function is to advise the severely disabled about facilities for setting up business on their own account. As my hon. Friend knows, these are the particular functions of our disablement resettlement officers, who play an important part not only in placing disabled people in employment but also in giving them general advice.
In this case the only possible resettlement which our officers could envisage was through our scheme for helping people to set up business on their own account. We have the power under the 1944 Act to provide some financial assistance to severely disabled people to set up business on their own account, where this represents the only prospect of satisfactory and lasting resettlement. But we could not help Mr. Lynch in this way until the matters which were appropriate to the local authorities in this case were resolved. I am sure that my hon. Friend will accept that it was the duty of our disablement resettlement officers to advise Mr. Lynch about this.
My hon. Friend also makes the point that no Department, or, for that matter, the corporation, seems able or willing to bring his constituent's case to a conclusion. My inquiries show that over a long period our officers had many contacts with Mr. Lynch and made a number of approaches to officers of local authorities on his behalf.
Since I wrote to my hon. Friend in May last year we have had no direct contact with Mr. Lynch, nor has my hon. Friend raised the matter since he wrote

to our local office last December. I acknowledge that he has been pursuing his constituent's case with other Departments.
My hon. Friend specifically asked me about the question of credits of national insurance contributions. I shall ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services to look into this matter. However, I understand that my right hon. Friend's Department gave a ruling to Mr. Lynch in June of last year to the effect that he was not entitled to contribution credits. He was told that he had the right of appeal to the Secretary of State for the question to be determined judicially. My information is that this was not taken up by my hon. Friend's constituent.
I wish to be as helpful as I can. I appreciate that this is a very human case and it is one which obviously causes us concern. Now that my hon. Friend has raised the case in this way, I have immediately instituted further inquiries. I intend personally to make strong representations to Manchester Corporation, because I know that the corporation has yet to come to a final conclusion about its policy as it affects the use of council property for business purposes. My hon. Friend says that the corporation has taken a long time about it. I hope that the corporation will come to a decision quickly so that cases like that of Mr. Lynch will not recur.

Mr. Haselhurst: Does not my hon. Friend agree that, apart from the general question of policy, one should particularise in the case of such a definable category of persons as the registered disabled?

Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend appreciates that we do not make the rules about housing and its use. As I said, I intend to make strong representations to Manchester Corporation. We are not able to decree to local authorities what they should or should not do. If the corporation wishes to contact my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment for advice, he is willing to give it. Perhaps my hon. Friend can engineer that.
I have also given instructions for our local officers to take up once more the


case which has been so vigorously put forward tonight. But I must emphasise that they have no jurisdiction in planning and housing management matters. If our local officers can bring about some kind of round table conference with the good will of people on all sides, I am sure that some progress can be made.
I sincerely hope that the local authorities involved will take a sympathetic view of the very difficult circumstances in which this unfortunate man and his family find themselves. I agree with my hon. Friend that it is sheer ignorance for people to make allegations to the effect that agoraphobia is not a disease and that people must be without arms or legs before they are regarded as disabled. My Department comes into contact constantly with many manifestations of disablement. I am sure, with the diagnosis that there has been, that this is a perfectly genuine case.
We shall still then have the opportunity to see how far we can help Mr. Lynch set up in his business by himself and to aid him in the courageous attitude he is adopting in trying to earn his living. I hope that this will reassure my hon. Friend that I have taken his point about the need for further initiatives.
I understand my hon. Friend's frustration that, with several different agencies involved, it does not seem to have been possible to get functioning exactly on the same wavelength, but I imagine that as a result of the debate a number of people on the ground in the locality will begin to look serious at what has transpired. They will read what my hon. Friend and I have said. Anything we can do further to bring this matter to a successful conclusion we will do.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at eleven minutes to Twelve o'clock.